/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>693535

If divine simplicity is false then the prime mover argument. If there is a prime mover, then the prime mover is simple; if the prime mover is not simple, then it is not a prime mover.

>>693557

>Scholastic autism starts flowing

>>693535

I think Orthodoxy doesn't deny divine simplicity, Palamas seems to have agreed with it, what is denied is absolute divine simplicity, which goes as far as saying that God is actus Purus or pure act. The scholastics (under Aquinas at the least) said the latter, Orthodoxy says the former.

>>693557

I still believe in the immovable mover argument but your post does not in any way disprove it.

>>693561

Sorry, I'm not all that intelligent. Could you perhaps explain in more detail what you mean but perhaps without using Latin words? Thanks.

>>693563

Don't worry brother, I'm not all that versed in the topic either.

Well both orthodoxy and Catholicism teaches that God is simple: which simply means he isn't made of parts, "hear Israel, the lord is one", the things we say about God, that he is omniscient etc is what God is, not what makes him up if you get my drift. God is not omniscience + omnipotence +…, But rather God is one.

Now absolute divine simplicity teaches that what we say about God must be God himself, so we must say that God IS good, God IS Merciful, he doesn't process the trait, he is the trait.

Now under absolute divine simplicity we need to go further, we can't say that God is Mercy and at the same time say God is Love, otherwise we get God being multiple things and not one absolutely simple thing, so we need to say that all the attributes of God are one and the same. Mercy, Love, Judgement, etc etc are all the same in God.

Modern Scholastics agree with this. Protestants are mixed, famous Protestant philosophers like Alvin Plantings and William Lane Craig deny divine simplicity outright for example.

Orthodoxy says that God is simple, but not absolutely simple. This is because the essence energy distinction.

I could go further but I want to make sure I'm not confusing you and that you understand what I mean.

>>693581

I think I get it. Before you go, may I ask, if God was to, let's say, lose one of these attributes such as love, goodness or mercifulness, would Be cease to be God?

>>693535

I don't think that you actually know what Scholastics mean by Simplicity

http://www.catholictheology.info/summa-theologica/summa-part1.php?q=21

>>693587

What makes you think I don't know what absolute simplicity is?

>>693582

Hmm that is an interesting question indeed.

I'm an Orthodox Christian so I reject absolute divine simplicity; God's love, his mercy, his grace etc are his energies, not his essence. But to someone who believes in absolute divine simplicity then his mercifulness as you put it would be him, as God IS mercy.

I think the answer would be yes, that he would cease to be God but I very well might be wrong so don't take it as gospel, that's just my opinion.

>>693591

Well, I was thinking, in Matthew when Christ said that the Son does not know the day or the hour, did He cease to be God? would this not go against hypostatic union which states that Christ was both fully God and fully man? Also, I believe that some of God's attributes are indistinguishable from His identity and that is His love, mercy and goodness. But I would not say the same for attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence.

>>693594

Regarding the Christ question about not knowing the day or the hour, one answer would be that in Orthodox triadology, what is had by one member of the trinity must be shared by the other two or unique to that one person, this fact that God knew that Jesus didn't means that the Father (who is God) knows but the son and the Ghost do not. Another example would be in Revelation 19:2 'His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.' The person being spoken about is Jesus, and since only he knows his name does that mean the Father is not God? In Orthodoxy no, as this is just one thing known only to Jesus and not by the other two.

>>693588

Calling it "not only being unbiblical but also due to the fact that it's derived from the philosophy of man".

Simplicity of God can be proven by biblical verses, namely "God is a spirit." "I am Who am." "I am the way, the truth, and the life". It is also concept straight from patristics, namely Augustine, Hillary and Dionysius.

And of course, there is this antibiblical notion that reason (and fllowing from reason natural philosophy)=bad. Which is satanical in nature, since it destroys true notion of imago Dei.

>>693596

I'll have to disagree with your interpretation of revelations. The fact that the Son is only mentioned knowing a specific facts does not negate that the Father knew.

>>693600

Ok, I think you misunderstand me now. The verses you quoted do not prove divine simplicity and I will go through them one by one.

>God is spirit

This doesn't refute my statement since I don't deny the fact that God is immutable. I think it defines God the way I do. According to divine simplicity God is inseparable from His attributes and His attributes are what make Him. If God was to, let's say, lose His omnipotence or some other devine attribute, He would cease to be God. But I don't think this is what exodus is saying. I'm exodus it doesn't seem like God is being defined by His attributes. Rather it's speaking of God as being God by virtue of being… God. That's what makes Him God. The fact that He is what He is. Not His attributes are what make Him, but rather Him being what He is is what makes Him God.

>I am who I am

Exactly, God is Who He is not what* He is. His identity as God is not found in His attributes but rather by the fact that He simply is.

>I am the way the truth and the life

This one doesn't even make sense. It's not talking about His simplicity. It's merely Christ using rethoric to explain the fact that He is the path to our salvation. Nothing about His identity being indistinguishable from His attributes.

And listen, I form give a crap what Augustine said if it's wrong, even he was infected with Aristotelian philosophy of you look at his background.

And you're mistaken when you say I think following reason of natural philosophy is bad. I agree that we can learn about God through looking at the world around us. But we must always have the scriptures as our ultimate authority. Anything that contradicts it is false. That's why I deny divine simplicity. Not because. I'm afraid of reason.

Also, you'll run into some problems if you believe in divine simplicity of you wish to let me explain further.

>>693596

But in Matthew the Son is clearly stated, I'm His incarnate form, to have not known the day or the hour.

>>693594

As God Christ is all-knowing, but as human he is not. Because it is impossible for the human nature to be all-knowing. Palama is very explicit that our human eyes are unable to see the uncreated light of God. God, however, makes our eyes able to see the uncreated light.

It is reasonable to assume that the same goes with the knowledge. Our human mind is limited but through the divine grace we can comprehend and know things that are above our nature. But we have the mind of Christ says Paul. (1 Cor. 2:16)

Some more quotations about this:

And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him. (Luke 2:40) In Greek it is clear that "became" is not a one-time act, but that child Jesus was becoming more and more strong and filled with wisdom.

And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man. (Luke 2:52) Here, too, "increased" is a continuing process.

And one quotation from St. John of Damascus:

"For thus says Isaiah the prophet, Before the child shall know to prefer the evil, he shall choose the good; because before the child knows good or evil, he refuses wickedness by choosing the good. For the word "before" proves that it is not with investigation and deliberation, as is the way with us, but as God and as subsisting in a divine manner in the flesh, that is to say, being united in subsistence to the flesh, and because of His very existence and all-embracing knowledge, that He is possessed of good in His own nature."

>>693600

>this antibiblical notion that reason = bad

The reason is not bad but theology based on reason (=scholasticism) is bad.

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” (1 Cor. 3:18-20)

The essence of God is simple but the normal human reasoning is complex. Therefore, the normal human reasoning is unable to comprehend God. The human mind has to cast aside any complexity. Only then it becomes able by the enlightening grace of God to contemplate God.

(By the way, this has been one of the arguments against the scholasticism in late Byzantium.)

>>693610

>As God Christ is all-knowing, but as human he is not.

This is where my OP comes in. Christ was both fully man and fully God and the same time. This is in fact the hypostatic union. It's the basis in which both Catholics and eastern orthodox use to argue for belief that Mary is theotokos. Because things which are predicated of Christ human nature are also attributed to His divine nature even though those characteristics are not predicated of His divine nature. It is why Paul can say the LORD of glory died for our sins in 1 Corinthians 2:8:

<None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

When you say only one part of Christ did not know the day and hour, you have now split Christ and fallen into the nestorian heresy. Things that are predicated of Christ's human nature are also attributed to His divine nature and so God the Son did not know the day or hour.But

And this is why I deny divine simplicity because you would have to admit that the Son in His incarnate form was not God, which is against the clear biblical teaching that He was.

>>693609

That's because he is incarnate, he became fully human. With humanity comes a lack of perfect knowledge.

>>693618

But according to divine simplicity, He was not fully God because He did not have His perfect knowledge.This also goes against the hypostatic union.

>>693613

Yet in order for Christ to be fully human (ie Incarnate) he would have to give up some of the things that make him divine (As in cut himself off from having those traits). Take immortality for example, if Christ became incarnate as an immortal human, then he would,'t be fully human.

>>693620

But then wouldn't that make him not God, seeing as though some divine attributes were stripped off?

>>693620

>if Christ became incarnate as an immortal human, then he would,'t be fully human.

Actually, no. He wouldnt assume our fallen nature, but he would be human. Also, I think that how you formulate things are dangerously close to Monophysitism.

>>693626

If he didn't assume our fallen nature how did he die then? Isn't an attribute of the fallen nature the ability to die? Could you clear this up for me please?

>>693608

>>693608

>According to divine simplicity God is inseparable from His attributes and His attributes are what make Him.

According to divine simplicity attributes of God are inseparable from essence of God and He has those attributes because He is Him.

> If God was to, let's say, lose His omnipotence or some other divine attribute, He would cease to be God.

First of all, this speculation is on level of absolute inteculal mud, "Can God made trinagle with four sides" kind.

Second of all, you are going for butt stuff. Don't go for butt stuff, start with head. Divine Simplicty tells us that God does not have omnipotence but that he is Omnipotent because he is God

>Rather it's speaking of God as being God by virtue of being… God. That's what makes Him God. The fact that He is what He is. Not His attributes are what make Him, but rather Him being what He is is what makes Him God. Exactly, God is Who He is not what* He is. His identity as God is not found in His attributes but rather by the fact that He simply is.

You just tried to deny divine simplicity by claiming that divine simplicity is true. Meaning that eathier you don't know what you are actually talking about or don't know what divine simplicity is.

>This one doesn't even make sense. It's not talking about His simplicity. It's merely Christ using rethoric to explain the fact that He is the path to our salvation. Nothing about His identity being indistinguishable from His attributes.

It's clear from the text that God is Life, just as John in another place speaks that He is Love.

"For it is not that He Himself is one thing and His ‘days’ another; since God is that thing which He hath. For He hath eternity, yet He is Himself Eternity. He hath Light, yet He is Himself His own Light. He hath brightness, yet He is Himself His own Brightness. And so in Him it is not one thing to be, and another thing to have" as explianed by St Gregory (Moral. XVI, C. 43).

>And listen, I form give a crap what Augustine said if it's wrong, even he was infected with Aristotelian philosophy of you look at his background.

Augustine was more of a Platonic but that's beside the point. What matter is that you pridefuly "don't give a crap" about one of few Fathers that even Ecumenical council appointed a standard.

>And you're mistaken when you say I think following reason of natural philosophy is bad. I agree that we can learn about God through looking at the world around us. But we must always have the scriptures as our ultimate authority. Anything that contradicts it is false. That's why I deny divine simplicity. Not because. I'm afraid of reason.

Philosophy is not theology, and theology is above philosophy but if you're theology contradicts philosophy of nature then your theology is utter bull.

Not to mention that your theology is bull anyway, since you are "sola scriptura" guy but it's irrelevant.

>Also, you'll run into some problems if you believe in divine simplicity of you wish to let me explain further.

Or rather, your wrong theology will.

>>693610

>The reason is not bad but theology based on reason (=scholasticism) is bad.

You don't know what scholasticism is, do you? FIDES ET Ratio. Not Solus ratio.

>(By the way, this has been one of the arguments against the scholasticism in late Byzantium.)

Same Byzantium that used Scholasticism as basis of its seminaries curriculum for majority of it's existence?

>>693613

>Because things which are predicated of Christ human nature are also attributed to His divine nature

On what Planet do you live? Certainly not here.

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4): "When we mention the Godhead we do not predicate of it the idioms," i.e. the properties, "of the humanity; for we do not say that the Godhead is passible or creatable." Now the Godhead is the Divine Nature. Therefore what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the Divine Nature.

ST III Q16 a5

Mary is called Theotokos not because he gave birth to Divine Nature (she didn't, you don't bore natures) but to Divine Person.

You fallen into monophysitism. And there is no better antidote to this than good dose of Scholasticism. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4016.htm#article5

>>693620

Impassibilis est Deus, sed non incompassibilis—God cannot suffer, but he can suffer with.

Son of God stayed immortal in his divinity even when he died in his humanity.

>>693627

He did.

I am just saying that there is a generic human nature, made in our image and likeness of God, and there is our current fallen state. I dont like when people confuse the two.

>>693630

>made in our image and likeness

*made in image and likeness

"our" ended up there accidentally

>>693624

He didn't have any of his divine attributes stripped off, but cut off, what i mean is that he personally blocked his ability to reach it. At the resurrection, he got rid of the block.

Humans cannot know everything, Orthodoxy states that we cannot know the divine essence, and Catholicism says we cannot fully know the divine essence, the mysteries of God are infinite.

>>693628

>God cannot suffer, but he can suffer with.

DOesn't that make the incarnation shallow? If Christ really didn't suffer with humanity, if he really didn't feel sorrow at the death of Lazarus, a sorrow enough to weep, or to get angry at the money lenders in the temple, then why did he become incarnate? Why not just appear as a theophany?

>>693613

>you have now split Christ and fallen into the nestorian heresy.

St. Athanasius the Great:

"let us, who love Christ and bear Christ within us, know that the Word, not as ignorant, considered as Word, has said 'I know not,' for He knows, but as showing His manhood , in that to be ignorant is proper to man, and that He had put on flesh that was ignorant , being in which, He said according to the flesh, 'I know not.'"

St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen):

"Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the absolute and unconditioned use of the Name "The Son" in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, gives us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead."

St. Maximus the Confessor:

"How should we understand the ignorance of the Son of God regarding the end?

There are two kinds of ignorance - reproachful and irreproachable; and one of them depends on us, and the other does not depend on us.

That which is reproachful and depends on us is about virtue and piety. And that which is irreproachable and does not depend on us, concerns things that we, although we want to know, do not know, because they happen far away or will happen in the future.

So, if in the case of the holy prophets, by grace they recognized the distant and independent of us, isn't it that to an incomparably greater extent the Son of God knew all things, and for this reason His humanity, not by its nature but by the union with the Logos, knew them? For just as a burning iron in fire has all the properties of fire - for it burns and burns, - although by nature it is not fire, but iron, so is the humanity of the Lord, by unity with the Logos it knew everything, and everything that befits the Divine in him it was revealed. But with respect to the human nature, united with Him (that is, with the Logos), it is said that He did not know."

In the above quote St. Maximus says that despite that with respect to his human nature Christ was limited and his human nature did not know, this was irrelevant, because He burned with the fire of the divinity so by this fire his human body and soul were made all-knowing.

>>693633

You don't understand this phrase it seems. "Man is worth so much to God that he himself became man in order to suffer with man in an utterly real way—in flesh and blood—as is revealed to us in the account of Jesus's Passion. " to wuote BXVI. Christ suffering was utterly real. Person of Christ suffered. But Divinity of Christ did not because it cannot.

>>693633

I meant to say suffer "at the hands" of humanity, not with.

>>693628

>According to divine simplicity attributes of God are inseparable from essence of God and He has those attributes because He is Him.

And what would happen if He were to lose one of His divine attributes?

>First of all, this speculation is on level of absolute inteculal mud, "Can God made trinagle with four sides" kind.

Then what happened when Christ did not know the hour?

>You just tried to deny divine simplicity by claiming that divine simplicity is true.

Actually, you don't understand my position. You claim that God's attributes such as the 3 omnis are Him. But this absolute simplicity is what I deny. Even if God was to lay aside these attributes, which He did at the incarnation, He would still be God because His attributes are not inseparable from His nature but rather are simply attributes of God.

>It's clear from the text that God is Life, just as John in another place speaks that He is Love.

Yeah, that's not the point of the verse. And I think you're looking too deep into the semantics. All Christ is saying is that He is the source of all these things.

>Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4):

Well, how about this quote by Gregory of Nyssan:

>If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.” St Gregory of Nyssan ~ To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius. (Ep. Ci.)

>>693628

>Fides et Ratio

Which is what is wrong. Its not faith and reason, faith precedes and is greater than reason.

>>693628

>It's clear from the text that God is Life, just as John in another place speaks that He is Love.

Jesus also says that he is the bread of life, is he therefore literally bread?

>>693639

>St Athanasius

Doesn't make any sense. His answer seems speculative at best. There are also other places in scripture where it states that Christ grew in knowledge. Was He only pretending to grow in knowledge?

>St. Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzen)

Tipping on nestorianism. Exactly what some other anons said in this thread and its splits the natures. You could also say that only Christ's human side died for our sins and not His divine side.

>St. Maximus the Confessor:

Doesn't add anything new but pretty much makes the same response.

I wonder if they would use the same reasoning with 1 Corinthians 2:8:

<None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

>>693628

Why do papists love to shove Latin everywhere? Can't you say it in English? Or does it make you feel smart?

>>693650

It's sacred language. It sounds better in Latin. It's trigger brainlets such as you.

>>693646

So you're agreeing with fedoras that belief in God is not guided by reason?

>>693652

Mashallah akhi.

So yes, as I thought, it's just for you to feel smart and special and excuse to call everyone that points out this retarded behaviour "brainlet".

>>693661

True faith isn't. Demanding reason for belief implies a doubt on your part. Pure faith is not based on reason, but on love, it is our failing human nature that demands proof for Christ.

>>693652

>It's sacred language. It sounds better in Latin. It's trigger brainlets such as you.

აჴოცენინ უფალმან ყოველნი ბჭენი მზაკუარნი და ენაჲ დიდად მეტყუეელი,

რომელთა თქუეს: ენაჲ ჩუენი განვიდიდოთ, ბაგენი ჩუენნი ჩუენ თანა არიან; და ვინ ჩუენდა უფალ არს?

huh, dont mind me, just typing stuff in my sacred language…

>>693648

I am not the anon with whom you have been arguing. Don't expect me to argue with you for there is no virtue in arguing. ☺

According to nestorianism, Christ and the Word of God are two persons. According to the various varieties of the monophysitism, the incarnated Word is not human in everything. And the Orthodox stand is that Christ has everything human but the sin. How is this not a Nestorianizm? It isn't because Christ and the Word of God are one person and the reason this is possible is that God has created the human able to be partaker of the divine essence. In fact, each of us is called to be partaker of the divine essence.

>>693637

What did you expect from a thread about Divine Simplicity and Essence Energy Distinction?

>>693662

>>693666

People with functioning brain cells remember that it was Latin alongside Greek and Hebrew that Christ sanctified by his Cross. They also can appreciatestructure of language, its inner harmony. To render it in english would be strange (God is not-able-to-suffer, but not not-co-able-to-suffer).

>>693643

>And what would happen if He were to lose one of His divine attributes?

He cannot. You cannot be and not be at the same time.

>Then what happened when Christ did not know the hour?

Just read http://www.catholicapologetics.info/scripture/newtestament/24matth.htm starting from "But of that day"

>Actually, you don't understand my position. You claim that God's attributes such as the 3 omnis are Him. But this absolute simplicity is what I deny. Even if God was to lay aside these attributes, which He did at the incarnation, He would still be God because His attributes are not inseparable from His nature but rather are simply attributes of God.

But God did not lay aside this attributes in incarnation (for he cannot). On contrary, he was as omnipotent and omnipresent as always. He changed water in wine and wine into his blood with the same omnipotence. As Augustine says (De Symbolo iii): "The whole Son is with the Father, the whole Son in heaven, on earth, in the Virgin's womb, on the Cross, in hell, in paradise, into which He brought the robber." Morover, creed of Chalcedon says that "property of each nature being preserved" in Christ. That means that all omnis of Godhood Christ had.

>Yeah, that's not the point of the verse. And I think you're looking too deep into the semantics. All Christ is saying is that He is the source of all these things.

"For He hath eternity, yet He is Himself Eternity. He hath Light, yet He is Himself His own Light. He hath brightness, yet He is Himself His own Brightness. And so in Him it is not one thing to be, and another thing to have"

>Well, how about this quote by Gregory of Nyssan:

Who says that "Christ is consubstantial with humanity in his human nature" to paraphrase creed of Athanasius. Which does not change the fact that what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the Divine Nature. What is proper to divine nature can be said of Man and what is proper to human nature can be said of God because God and Man is the same and one Person but those two natures are not the same natures.

>>693704

>"For He hath eternity, yet He is Himself Eternity. He hath Light, yet He is Himself His own Light. He hath brightness, yet He is Himself His own Brightness. And so in Him it is not one thing to be, and another thing to have"

Source?

>>693704

>People with functioning brain cells remember that…

უწინარეს შემუსრვისა ძღჳს გინებაჲ, უწინარეს დაცემისა სახე ბოროტებაჲ.

>>693704

>it was Latin alongside Greek and Hebrew that Christ sanctified by his Cross

In the Orthodox Church this is known as trilingual heresy. The following is an excerpt from a prayer by St. Cyrill (brother of St. Methodius):

"Hear my prayer and keep Your faithful flock, whose shepherd you have installed me, the sinful and unworthy servant of Yours. Deliver this flock from any ungodliness and wickedness, and from every heretical tongue speaking blasphemously against You. Destroy the trilingual heresy and grow Your Church in multitudes."

To those who insisted that the Mass has to be in Latin the Saint said: woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in and also Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”

However I must admit there are, cases when I don't know how to properly say something in English. For example I am looking for the proper translation of the Greek words Theanthropos and theanthropic.

ITT: word salads.

>>693637

It reeks of gibberish from start to finish. And then these faggots wonder why the Reformation and the Renaissance happened.

>>693711

St Gregory (Moral. XVI, C. 43).

>>693646

Faith presupposes reason. Only rational creatures can have faith.

>>693647

Yes. Eucharist. Bread of Life is his Body as he himself explains.

>>693730

Why do you speak to me about spears?

>>693924

> trilingual heresy

Where was it condemned? Where is Pope or Ecumenical council denouncing it as heresy? Or unanimous consent of Fathers? Or Scholastic Doctors? Nowhere I presume.

It seem to me, that St. Cyrill had his own opinion that was rightly ignored. St. Isidore of Seville (Book IX of Etymologies) is heretic now?

Oh and since when Mass is about ANYTHING but worship of God? This error expressed by is what get us litugical movement.

>I am looking for the proper translation of the Greek words Theanthropos and theanthropic

God-Man and God-Man's is good enough.

>>693973

>Only rational creatures can have faith.

It is true that Paul sometimes speaks of this as "human wisdom", as when he says, "My proclamation does not rest on the persuasive words of human wisdom" (1 Corinthians 2:13). But at the same time, he thinks it right to call those who have acquired it "wise according to the flesh" (1 Corinthians 1:26), or "wise men become feeble minded" (Romans 1:22), "the disputants of this age" (1 Corinthians 1:20), and their wisdom is qualified by him in similar terms: it is "wisdom become folly" (1 Corinthians 1:20), the "wisdom which has been done away" (1 Corinthians 1:28), "vain trumpery" (Colossians 2:8), the "wisdom of this age", and belongs to the "princes" of this age-who are "coming to an end" (1 Corinthians 2:6).

For myself, I listen to the father who says, "Woe to body when it does not consume the nourishment that is from without, and woe to the soul when it does not receive the grace that is from above!" He speaks justly-for the body will perish once it has passed into the world of inanimate things, and the soul will become enmeshed in the demonic life and the thoughts of demons if it turns away from that which is proper to it.

Moreover, the mind of demons, created by God, possesses by nature faculty of reason. But we do not hold that its activity comes from God, even though its possibility of acting comes from Him; one could with propriety call such reason an unreason. The intellect of pagan philosophers is likewise a divine gift insofar as it naturally possesses a wisdom endowed with reason. But it has been perverted by the wiles of the devil, who has transformed it into a foolish wisdom, wicked and senseless, since it puts forward such doctrines.

Is there then anything of use in this philosophy? Certainly; for just as there is much therapeutic value even in substances obtained from the flesh of serpents, and the doctors consider there is no better and more useful medicine than that derived from this source, so there is something of benefit to be had even from the profane philosophers- but somewhat as in a mixture of honey and hemlock. So it is most needful that those who wish to separate out the honey from the mixture should beware that they do not take the deadly residue by mistake. And if you were to examine the problem, you would see that all or most of the harmful heresies derive their origin from this source.

Nonetheless, if you put to good use that part of the profane wisdom which has been well excised, no harm can result, for it will naturally have become an instrument for good. But even so, it cannot in the strict sense be called a gift of God and a spiritual thing, for it pertains to the order of nature and is not sent from on high. This is why Paul, who is so wise in divine matters, calls it "carnal" (2 Corinthians 1:12); for, says he, "Consider that among us who have been chosen, there are not many wise according to the flesh" (1 Corinthians 1:26). For who could make better use of this wisdom than those whom Paul calls "wise from outside" (1 Timothy 3:7)? But having this wisdom in mind, he calls them "wise according to the flesh", and rightly too.

St. Gregory Palamas

>>693991

“It is, we say, with philosophers we have to confer with respect to this theology,-men whose very name, if rendered into Latin, signifies those who profess the love of wisdom. Now, if wisdom is God, who made all things, as is attested by the divine authority and truth, then the philosopher is a lover of God. “

Saint Augustine.

And by Aristobulus, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who is mentioned by the composer of the epitome of the books of the Maccabees, there were abundant books to show that the Peripatetic philosophy was derived from the law of Moses and from the other prophets. Let such be the case.

Saint Clement of Alexandria

The teachings of Plato are not different from those of Christ, but they are not in all respects similar.

St. Justin Martyr

Etc etc. http://www.voxpatrum.pl/pdfy/Vox65/Artemi.pdf

But most important:

The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

Saint and Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas.

>>694000

>Saint and Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas.

Opinion discarded

>>693704

>He cannot. You cannot be and not be at the same time.

Ok, then how do you explain the verse I mentioned earlier?

>Just read

Yeah, just did. It doesn't give any answer that is different from the ones I've heard in this thread. It just splits up the natures of Christ and can lead to nestorianism. If the link you posted is to be consistent with this form of exegesis then it would also have to say that only the divine side died on the cross and not the human side in 1 Corinthians 2:8. Furthermore, the article sounds speculative at best. It even refers to the Son in His divine name but then goes on to say that the Son said He did not know because He was simply joking and did actually know. I'm not convinced by it at all. And this isn't the only place we see Christ lose some of His divine attributes such as His omnipresence and He grows in knowledge as seen in Luke 2:52

>But God did not lay aside this attributes in incarnation (for he cannot).

Then what does this mean?

<Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross

Philippians 2:5-8

>He changed water in wine and wine into his blood with the same omnipotence.

Christ doing miracles does not prove that He was omnipotent. Even the OT prophets did miracles, does that prove that they were omnipotent?

>Moreover, creed of Chalcedon says that "property of each nature being preserved" in Christ.

We have different definition of the proper natures of each. You clearly have a scholastic/Anselm definition of God, which I disagree with. Even if God was to lay aside some of His divine attributes in order to complete a specific task in order to bring about the redemption of man, He would still be the great I AM.

>"For He hath eternity, yet He is Himself Eternity. He hath Light, yet He is Himself His own Light. He hath brightness, yet He is Himself His own Brightness. And so in Him it is not one thing to be, and another thing to have"

if I'm not mistaken, this quote is taken from Gregory the Great, But I still disagree with His interpretation. God is simply the source of these things. What does it even mean to be the way? Clearly Christ is using a rhetorical device, as He usually does, to express certain teachings and better explain to His audience like He does in Matthew 7:3-5 about taking the log out of your own eye. That's it and anything else will simply be looking too deep into semantics. Why do you take this statement to be literally about Christ speaking about His simplicity but Matthew 24:36 as simply a statement of humility on Christ part? One verse is symbolic while the other is literal but you interpret the symbolic verse literally and the literal one symbolically.

>Which does not change the fact that what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the Divine Nature. What is proper to divine nature can be said of Man and what is proper to human nature can be said of God because God and Man is the same and one Person but those two natures are not the same natures.

I might have read that wrong but it seems like in one part you say "what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the Divine Nature" but in the next sentence you say "what is proper to human nature can be said of God." Could you clarify for me please? I might have missed you point.

>>693973

>Yes. Eucharist. Bread of Life is his Body as he himself explains.

But was he the bread of life before the creation of the world, before he created bread?

This whole thing just sounds ridiculous that you can call God as Love purely, mercy purely, and then say he is also bread because of the Eucharist which he implemented later.

He also says he is a gate. Is God in his essence a gate?

>>694001

Said one who quotes Palamas, who had so irrelevant theology, that when patriarchs of Eastern Church made "What are your errors" list and sent it to the Church in eve of Vatican I Palamite theology wasn't even mentioned. And disarding St. Thomas who had been base for theological circulum of Byzantines until Turks raped them to death.

>>694024

>Ok, then how do you explain the verse I mentioned earlier?

You mean 1 Corinthians 2:8? Lord of Glory is description of Person not Nature. To say otherwise would be monophysite. Or maybe you want to claim that Divine Nature suddenly have flesh (Romans 9:5)?

>Yeah, just did. It doesn't give any answer that is different from the ones I've heard in this thread. It just splits up the natures of Christ and can lead to nestorianism.

Creed of Holy Council of Chalcedon, against heretics Nestorius and Eutyches: Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the unity, but rather the property of each nature being preserved.

You have fallen into monophysitism

>If the link you posted is to be consistent with this form of exegesis then it would also have to say that only the divine side died on the cross and not the human side in 1 Corinthians 2:8

Alredy anserwed. Christ is Lord of Glory in his humanity by being Divine Person (and by glory of his merits).

>Furthermore, the article sounds speculative at best. It even refers to the Son in His divine name but then goes on to say that the Son said He did not know because He was simply joking and did actually know.

We read the same article, or did you not paid attention? Commenter speaks plainly that it was serious teaching of Christ - do not seek after knowledge that is not suited for you. Same with one of his last earthly teachings (Acts 1:7).

>I'm not convinced by it at all. And this isn't the only place we see Christ lose some of His divine attributes such as His omnipresence

He was always omnipresent as proven from Augustine.

>and He grows in knowledge as seen in Luke 2:52

Christ has many kinds of knowledge. Divine, Beatific, Infused and Acquired. Luke here speaks about this last kind.

>Then what does this mean?

Athanaisan creed explains: Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood.

He took form, that is nature, of servant, that is human. Emptied here is poor translation; should be debased, that is divested himself of all the marks of greatness.

>Christ doing miracles does not prove that He was omnipotent. Even the OT prophets did miracles, does that prove that they were omnipotent?

Prophets of old did miracles by power of God. Christ did it by his own power, that is power of God. And it is common opinion of the Fathers is that six jars of water signify that his miracles were done by the same power that six days of creation.

>We have different definition of the proper natures of each. You clearly have a scholastic/Anselm definition of God, which I disagree with. Even if God was to lay aside some of His divine attributes in order to complete a specific task in order to bring about the redemption of man, He would still be the great I AM.

God cannot lay aside his attributes. God does not deny his own nature.

God is by definition omnipotent. He is by definition living. He is by definition omnipresent. Etc etc. He cannot not be.

Also, "I AM" is name of God that signifies that he is being subistent in itself, one of pillars of Divine Simplicity.

>if I'm not mistaken, this quote is taken from Gregory the Great, But I still disagree with His interpretation.

Then you are wrong since it's common opinion of Fathers.

>God is simply the source of these things.

God does not have anything; if he did, he would be in potentiality towards having it, and he would receive it from some prior being. But there is no being prior to the First Being. God is pure actuality. God is his own essence, his own nature, his own life, his own Godhead, and whatever else may be thus predicated of him. If God have eternity, He himself is Eternity. If he have light, he himself is Light.

>What does it even mean to be the way?

That "No man cometh to the Father, but by me." Literally, not retholically. And there are many other meanings but Augustine fits here best: “Christ is the way according to His humanity by which He comes to us, and returns to the Father. The same is the truth and the life according to His Divinity.”

>Why do you take this statement to be literally about Christ speaking about His simplicity but Matthew 24:36 as simply a statement of humility on Christ part? One verse is symbolic while the other is literal but you interpret the symbolic verse literally and the literal one symbolically.

All verses are literal. All verses are symbolic. And moral and anagogical. And literal is base of all others. And as seen in comentary, it is not "simply a statement of humility".

>I might have read that wrong but it seems like in one part you say "what is proper to the human nature cannot be said of the Divine Nature" but in the next sentence you say "what is proper to human nature can be said of God." Could you clarify for me please? I might have missed you point.

Human person, that is Man, IS NOT human nature that person have.

Divine person, that is God, IS NOT divine nature that person have.

What belongs to human nature DOES belong to human person, that is Man.

What belongs to divine nature DOES belong to divine person, that is God.

Christ, that IS NOT his human nature, but because he have human nature he can be called Man.

Christ IS NOT his divine nature, but because he have divine nature he can be called God.

To Christ, who is Man DOES belong divine nature, and what it's proper to it.

To Christ, who is God DOES belong human nature, and what it's proper to it.

In Christ what is peoper to one nature DO NOT belong other nature.

>>694041

>But was he the bread of life before the creation of the world, before he created bread?

"Jesus Christ yesterday and today: and the same for ever." Christ was alawsy bread of life because he always was life itself.

>This whole thing just sounds ridiculous that you can call God as Love purely, mercy purely, and then say he is also bread because of the Eucharist which he implemented later.

Implementation of Eucharist does not mean that Eucharist, that is person of Christ, did not existed before.

>He also says he is a gate. Is God in his essence a gate?

Christ is Gate because through his grace alone one can enter heaven. And "grace of God is life everlasting". And since God have life, he is life.

>>694065

But is his essence literally bread as you claim and is it literally a gate?

You said earlier that "God is life, just as John in another place speaks that he is Love", saying he is love and life quite literally. Now when he is a Gate you say he is "because through his grace alone we enter heaven" which is a metaphor, as you just said he is a gate only in a metaphorical sense.

>>694064

>Said one who quotes Palamas

No, this was another anon.

I quoted Palamas but I could easily put his words in my mouth because they are self-explanatory, the proof is inside the quote. The quote of Aquinas, on the other hand, does not contain any proof and requires from me to accept him as an authority.

>>694075

>But is his essence literally bread as you claim and is it literally a gate?

Bread here means life. Gate hear means grace (which is life).

>You said earlier that "God is life, just as John in another place speaks that he is Love", saying he is love and life quite literally. Now when he is a Gate you say he is "because through his grace alone we enter heaven" which is a metaphor, as you just said he is a gate only in a metaphorical sense.

Grace is literal gate to heaven, since gate is entrance i.e. you cannot enter into thing without it.

>>694077

>I quoted Palamas but I could easily put his words in my mouth because they are self-explanatory, the proof is inside the quote.

I'd like to see that proof. For it is not in first pargraph, nor is second, nor in any other.All there is "all philosophy bad because I say so" and then protestant-tier rape on scriptures.

>The quote of Aquinas, on the other hand, does not contain any proof and requires from me to accept him as an authority.

Saint Thomas gives self evident truth, that all who did not sin against nature by having forsaken image of God in them, that is reason, that perfection presupposes that there is something that can be be perfected.

>>694116

>philosophy bad

Not bad. Unreliable. Because to any argument there is a counter-argument. There isn't a single thesis all philosophers agree on.

>>694124

There is Truth and there is Falsity. Of course Greek (and Germans thought by them) indulged in dialectics so they forget that but healthy philosophy thought by Fathers and Doctors understand it. Natural law and all that stuff.

>>694139

>healthy philosophy

How does one make healthy philosophy?

>>694149

By making it about and in accordance with Truth. As Theology is dependent on Faith and Revelation so True Philosophy is dependent on Reason and Nature.

I.e. did what Fathers and Doctors did.

>>694154

>By making it about and in accordance with Truth.

I can't disagree with this. But here is another question, if I may:

We can make philosophy about and in accordance with the Truth only if we already know the Truth. But if we already know the Truth, then what do we get from the philosophy?

>>694156

>We can make philosophy about and in accordance with the Truth only if we already know the Truth. But if we already know the Truth, then what do we get from the philosophy?

We are not Angels, know things in instant, our knowledge is discursive. And not all natural truths are written in us, but only proper to all. And there is of course falsehoods coming from flesh, world and devil, that must be fought with.

>>694064

>Byzantines until Turks raped them to death.

You know…your posts clearly shows pride, and hatred of your disgusting heard towards the east. Instead of being an autist on 8ch, maybe you are better off to the monastery to clean your vile soul

>>694168

It was rape, at least in raptus/rapere sense. And I am disgusted by Byzantium as concept, true, because it's inherently sinful, as proven by Duo Sunt. And even more, love of neighbour moves me to hate Schism even more.

And now, maybe instead of selfrighousnes passive-aggressive bull, you will present arguments?

>>694162

I am not sure I understand you. Can I use the philosophy in order to discover truths I didn't know? If yes, then what do I have to do in order to avoid the mistakes of the Greeks and Germans you pointed in a previous post? If no, then my original question stands: what do we get from the philosophy?

>We are not Angels, know things in instant, our knowledge is discursive.

The approach of the hesychasts is to be like Angels and to know or rather contemplate things in instant.

>>694162

Do angels know of the divine essence?

>>694177

>Can I use the philosophy in order to discover truths I didn't know?

> If yes, then what do I have to do in order to avoid the mistakes of the Greeks and Germans you pointed in a previous post?

Do not fall in dialectics for starters. Use sound logic and rules, such as principle of noncontradiction. And do not hold that natural world is all there is.

Or again: do what Fathers and Doctors did.

>The approach of the hesychasts is to be like Angels and to know or rather contemplate things in instant.

We are not angels. We are not pure spirits. We never will be, even in first heaven, for we are not spirits in cage of the bodies as Plato and gnostics claimed, we are union of body and soul.

In the human intellect or understanding there is an active and a passive power: the active intellect (intellectus agens) works on sense-findings and renders them understandable; the passive intellect (intellectus possibilis) receives the understandable objects and expresses them within itself as ideas or concepts or expressed intelligible species. Now, an angel does not need to work out its knowledge in this way. It has its knowledge from God; its knowledge comes to it with its nature, that is, with its essence equipped for proper operation. An angel has no need to work out intellectual knowledge from sense-findings; an angel has no senses. An angel's intellect is not distinguished as an active and a passive faculty. An angel's knowledge is not acquired by effort of the knower; an angel's knowledge is imparted to it by its Creator at its creation.

>>694184

What do you mean by "know of"? If you mean "know that it exist" i.e. "know that God exist", then yes, angels know it naturally. So do humans. If by "know of" you mean "behold the beatific vision" or "see esenence of God" then, if they are good angels in Heaven, they do, as they are part of Body of Christ, the Church. If by "know of" you mean "comprehend" or "know exhaustively" then of course not, infinite does not get in finite.

>>694386

>sound logic

If one sticks to a particular, commonly accepted formal logic (such as syllogisic logic, propositional logic or predicate logic) and if he decides to use nothing outside this logic but only some basic facts provided by the faith, then it becomes impossible to prove any interesting new truth. If you have some counterexample of this, I will be very interested to see it, but I am pretty sure there isn't one.

>Or again: do what Fathers and Doctors did.

The reasonings of Aquinas, for example his proofs that God exists, are interesting, but they are not proofs that can be confined within any acceptable formal logic. This is why these proofs don't have the power to persuade someone who believes God doesn't exist even when he is knows all kinds of human logics.

This means if I want to use logic in order to find new truths, then inevitably I have to supplement the basic logic with something that is intrinsically my own outlook. Any statement I prove in this way is uncertain, it can be true, but it can also be false. Therefore the divine revelation can be the only source of certain truths.

>>694386

>We are not angels. We are not pure spirits. We never will be, even in first heaven, for we are not spirits in cage of the bodies as Plato and gnostics claimed, we are union of body and soul.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as (like) the angels of God in heaven." Matthew 22:30

The hesychasts are following the words of Christ.

>If by "know of" you mean "comprehend" or "know exhaustively" then of course not, infinite does not get in finite.

So since the divine essence can never be fully comprehended, and since his attributes such as love, grace, mercy are the essence itself, then humans and angels never receive the full love, grace, and mercy of God.

>>694450

We should have in mind that Catholics and Orthodox use the word 'essence' differently. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Even such an important word as 'hypostasis' does not have exact Latin correspondence. The literal translation into Latin of the Greek word 'hypostasis' is 'substance', however 'substance' is used for the essence of God and 'hypostasis' for the three persons of God. Considering that the notion of essence-energy distinction never got developed in the Catholicism, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the word 'essence', too, is used differently by the Catholic and the Orthodox theologians.

So, let me try to use the logic that our Cathfriend loves so much, in order to clarify the things a bit. In the following 'C-essence' will mean the 'essence' as understood by the Catholics. And 'O-essence' will mean the same for the Orthodox. Ok, here we go:

Definition 1. O-essence is that "part" (sorry for this word, I don't have time to think for a more appropriate word) of the C-essence of God that is totally incomprehensible. The O-essence of God can not be known in any way.

Definition 2. Energies is that "part" of the C-essence of God that can become known by the created beings.

Proposition 1. Love of God, grace of God, mercy of God, etc. are His energies.

Proof. They are perceivable, therefore they are energies.

Corollary 1. Love of God, grace of God, mercy of God, etc. are of the C-essence of God. They, however, are not of the O-essence of God.

Proposition 2. Some of the energies of God are perceived by us as changing in time.

Proof. There are many examples of this in the Bible and in our own lifes. At one time a person has the favour of God, after he sins, he no longer has the favour of God, then he repents and has the favour of God again. All this doesn't mean that God changes. It means we perceive His energies as changing.

Remark. When the Orthodox say that the energies of God change, they mean that we perceive these energies as changing. When the Catholics say nothing in God changes they say this statement assuming the timeless point of view of God. The first statement doesn't contradict the second.

>>694414

>>694414

>If one sticks to a particular, commonly accepted formal logic (such as syllogisic logic, propositional logic or predicate logic) and if he decides to use nothing outside this logic but only some basic facts

Yes…

>provided by the faith

We talk about philosophy, not theology. Natural, not supernatural knowlage and wisodm.

But regardless, when it comes to nature, existence of math as a living science proves that Truth is discovered everyday.

>The reasonings of Aquinas, for example his proofs that God exists, are interesting, but they are not proofs that can be confined within any acceptable formal logic. This is why these proofs don't have the power to persuade someone who believes God doesn't exist even when he is knows all kinds of human logics.

Or rather Aquinas is right in the logic and those who don't will to acknowledge not believe in God won't.

>This means if I want to use logic in order to find new truths, then inevitably I have to supplement the basic logic with something that is intrinsically my own outlook. Any statement I prove in this way is uncertain, it can be true, but it can also be false. Therefore the divine revelation can be the only source of certain truths.

On the contrary, divine revelation itself proclaims that there are certain natural truths (Jude 1:10, Romans 2:14)

>>694450

>The hesychasts are following the words of Christ.

<Denying Resurrection of the Body

<Rape on Scriptures by not knowing basic defintion of "AS"

Yeah, no.

Repeat after me this basic doctrine: Humans are union of body and soul. Body is not something accidental and created after soul. Stop being Origenist.

>So since the divine essence can never be fully comprehended, and since his attributes such as love, grace, mercy are the essence itself, then humans and angels never receive the full love, grace, and mercy of God.

Sed contra, By aid of the light of glory the soul in heaven sees God himself clearly and truly. This, to be sure, is no exhaustive viewing; the soul cannot understand all that is understandable in God; God is infinitely understandable, and the soul is finite

>>694466

“Essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God [to say the least: we are certainly right to question how something which infinitely transcends something else, and then infinitely transcends it an infinite number of times, could be considered in any way identified with that which it transcends], even though He is entirely manifest in every energy, His essence being indivisible.”

In other words, Palamism presents to us an infinitely transcendent and unknowable God somehow un-transcending Himself and His transcendence in order to be entirely manifest in every energy. Again, we have the right to pose a question: How can a God Who is an infinity of infinities above His “Energies”, and is in no way to be identified with them, yet be “entirely manifest” in every one of them? It would thus appear that Palamism posits a God of Divine Self-contradiction as a logical and necessary consequence of the dualism which it has established in the Divine.

But this is of course absurd who all those who is not high on fumes of heresy.

>>694503

>Denying Resurrection of the Body

They don't deny it. The key word is "like". Like the angels.

If anything Catholicism denies the resurrection, for if the dead have the beatific vision then they have no reason to be resurrected.

>Sed contra, By aid of the light of glory the soul in heaven sees God himself clearly and truly. This, to be sure, is no exhaustive viewing; the soul cannot understand all that is understandable in God; God is infinitely understandable, and the soul is finite

That still isn't answering the question; if the love, grace, glory, mercy, etc of God are the essence, and we can never fully understand it, then that means logically that we never fully receive the love of God. He portions a part off from us.

>>694520

owned

>>694503

>Repeat after me this basic doctrine: Humans are union of body and soul.

No the soul is a union of body and spirit.

<And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

breath of life = spirit

body = formed from the dust

body and spirit concatenated = (living) soul

>>694520

>If anything Catholicism denies the resurrection, for if the dead have the beatific vision then they have no reason to be resurrected.

Human is union of soul and body. Beatific vision is in soul. But we are not souls. We are humans. And thus at least in Catholic theology, resurrection is obvious.

?That still isn't answering the question; if the love, grace, glory, mercy, etc of God are the essence, and we can never fully understand it, then that means logically that we never fully receive the love of God. He portions a part off from us.

That still isn't answering the question; if the love, grace, glory, mercy, etc of God are the essence, and we can never fully understand it, then that means logically that we never fully receive the love of God. He portions a part off from us.

Sed contra, we do "fully" receive love of God as long as by "fully" you mean "as much as it is possible for that person". Glass is full of water, fully received water, even though there is no whole of water in the glass.

>>694522

"The first Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit."

Does that mean that spirit=body+soul+godhead? According to your logic, it is.

What is living soul? A soul that gives life to the body, for we read: every living soul died in the sea.

And we read that it is soul that is spiritual, not natural body every living soul died in the sea.

And Creed of Chalcedon cries to you, that Christ is "actually man, with a rational soul and a body." If soul was body and spirit then Christ had two bodies and all of actual men have two bodies.

Oh and finally Wisdom says of men: Him(God) that inspired into him(man) an active soul, and breathed in a living spirit.

>>694503

>We talk about philosophy, not theology

I was talking about the applicability of the scientific method (whatever this is) in theology.

>math as a living science proves that Truth is discovered

There are mathematicians who deny most of the modern mathematics and make alternative mathematics (Intuitionism, Constructive analysis). Even within the classical mathematics there is some disagreement with respect to some axioms.

Now, I agree that these are small issues, but it is remarkable that these issues exist despite that the mathematicians study worlds invented by their own imagination and not the world created by God. When we move from study of things that are our own invention to the study of things that are creation of God, things become even more insecure.

Granted, in Physics we improve our knowledge about the nature all the time. But the knowledge of the Physics always remains an approximate knowledge. Any theory in Physics becomes replaced by another after a while. And the same goes about the other of the natural sciences. I don't deny that the human mind can discover approximate knowledge about the nature and even about God. What I claim is this: since any approximate knowledge in the theology is evil, a mixture of truth and falsehood, the scientific method must not be used as a guide by the theologian. The theologian has to rely on the divine revelation. Solum revelatione.

>Aquinas is right in the logic

Right or not, nobody has described the rules of his logic. Therefore, even if his logic was correct (which I doubt), you and I still would be unable to use this logic safely as a theological instrument.

>divine revelation proclaims there are natural truths

Nobody denies that there are natural truths. Do you know at least one certain natural truth that is not something trivial and comming immediately from our senses? Perhaps you are certain that tomorrow the sun will rise again?

>infinitely transcendent and unknowable God somehow un-transcending Himself

I don't think you have to take literally the words within the braces. They are added by a modern commentator and make a specific point.

>Essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God

Because the O-essence is what is unknowable in the C-essence (in >>694386 you confirm that God can not be "known exhaustively") while the energies are knowable.

>God is in no way to be identified with energies,

Because we have already established that not everything about God is knowable while the energies are knowable.

>yet be “entirely manifest” in every one of them?

Think for example about the energy you, the Catholics, call "beatific vision". Is it a manifestation of a part of the O-essence of God? No, because we all, Catholics and Orthodox, agree that there are not parts in the O-essence of God. Therefore, the O-essence of God has to be entirely manifested in the beatific vision.

When a saint reaches the beatific vision does he have exhaustive knowledge about the C-essence of God? No, you have already confirmed that this is impossible. Then what do we observe in the beatific vision? Doesn't Aquinas say this vision is observing of God as He is? Yes, he does. Now look: if we observe God as He is, but we don't observe Him exhaustively, then what do we observe? It isn't the entirety of God and it is something of God, therefore it has to be some part of God. But Aquinas says there are no parts in the C-essence of God. So at this point I can use your own words and exclaim:

"But this is of course absurd who all those who is not high on fumes of heresy."

How do we resolve this absurd? Easy! While there are no "parts" in the absolutely unknown O-essence of God, there are observable "parts" in the energies of God.

Please, friend, humble yourself and don't dispute the teachings of those who were led by the Holy Spirit. There are many useful things in the writings of Aquinas and his books are books written by a pious man. This pious man, however, has been led not by the Holy Spirit but by his own imprecise mind.

>>694575

>I was talking about the applicability of the scientific method (whatever this is) in theology.

Then you changed topic of discussion without informing me about it.

>There are mathematicians who deny most of the modern mathematics and make alternative mathematics

That are built upon bad philosophy, a form of nihilism and materialism in your exemples.

>scientific method etc.

Scientific method is flawed for it is materialistic, enlightenment (tfu) construct, a poor ape of traditional method employed by faithful scientist, based upon good philosophy.

>The theologian has to rely on the divine revelation.

On contrary, revelation itself says that Church will be guided, not revealed, into truth (at least before end times).

>Right or not, nobody has described the rules of his logic. Therefore, even if his logic was correct (which I doubt), you and I still would be unable to use this logic safely as a theological instrument.

People did. There are whole books about explaining it in detail.

"Logic is the science and art which directs the act of the reason, by which a man in the exercise of his reason is enabled to proceed without error, confusion, or unnecessary difficulty." It can and should be used in theology, for by denail of it (true denail, i.e. true illogical theology) people will be lead in heresy for without logic there is no such thing non-contrdiciton - "Bible teaches A but that does not mean that anti-A is not biblical teaching"

>Nobody denies that there are natural truths. Do you know at least one certain natural truth that is not something trivial and comming immediately from our senses? Perhaps you are certain that tomorrow the sun will rise again?

Since when senses have anything to do with natural truth's known by reason? Senses are corporal, reason is spiritual.

I gave you two natural truths - God exist and second natural law - to procreate and care for offspring. Natural law as a whole, expressed in Decalogue, is another.

>I don't think you have to take literally the words within the braces. They are added by a modern commentator and make a specific point.

“Essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God even though He is entirely manifest in every energy, His essence being indivisible.”

Still an infinitely transcendent and unknowable God somehow un-transcending Himself.

Also, whole article for those interested http://waragainstbeing.com/partiii/

>Because the O-essence is what is unknowable in the C-essence

C-essence IS NOT DIVISIBLE. It is concept utmost novel and diabolic.

>you confirm that God can not be "known exhaustively"

He can, by himself.

>Think for example about the energy you, the Catholics, call "beatific vision".

You don't describe beatific vision at all.

In heaven the blessed will directly see the very essence of God. "We shall see him as he is" (I John 3:2).God is supremely intelligible or understandable, and is himself the determining of the creatural intellect to know him in his essence. To know God thus is to behold the beatific vision.

Beatific vision is not Eastern dissolution in divine, it's seeing God.

> Now look: if we observe God as He is, but we don't observe Him exhaustively, then what do we observe?

Objection 14. Further, whatever is in one way and is seen in another way is not seen as it is. Now God is in one way and will be seen in another way by the saints in heaven: for He according to His own mode, but will be seen by the saints according to their mode. Therefore He will not be seen by the saints as He is, and thus will not be seen in His essence.

Reply to Objection 14. In heaven God will be seen by the saints as He is, if this be referred to the mode of the object seen, for the saints will see that God has the mode which He has. But if we refer the mode to the knower, He will not be seen as He is, because the created intellect will not have so great an efficacy in seeing, as the Divine essence has to the effect of being seen.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm

>How do we resolve this absurd? Easy! While there are no "parts" in the absolutely unknown O-essence of God, there are observable "parts" in the energies of God.

And now give me answer that is not high on fumes of heresy.

God is absolutely simple. We might know this truth at once from the fact that whatever is compounded or composed is subsequent to its elements or parts, and also subsequent to the action of the cause which brings the parts together. But God is the First Being; God is not subsequent to anything. Nor is God subject to the action of any cause. It follows, therefore, that God is absolutely simple and uncomposed. God is pure actuality, God is also absolute simplicity.

>Please, friend, humble yourself and don't dispute the teachings of those who were led by the Holy Spirit.

Oh Palmas was lead by the Spirit. Spirit of Simon the Mage and his gnosis, falsely so called.

> This pious man, however, has been led not by the Holy Spirit but by his own imprecise mind.

On contrary, he is Doctor of the Church, and that means, that "dumb ox" as he himself called himself was lead by Holy Ghost.

But I will take one advice for you, I will humble myself, recognise that I cannot force you to accept grace of repeentace from heresy of Pantheism and I will leave "after the first and second admonition".

>>694616

>Then you changed topic

I never realised we had different topics. Sorry.

>revelation itself says that Church will be guided, not revealed, into truth

Please, explain. I don't understand what you mean.

>"Logic is the science and art which directs the act of the reason, by which a man in the exercise of his reason is enabled to proceed without error, confusion, or unnecessary difficulty." It can and should be used in theology,

Can you show at least one example of new theological truth invented by pure logic? I suppose there are none.

>C-essence IS NOT DIVISIBLE.

Let me use the words of Aquinas you graciously provided: "If we refer the mode to the knower, He will not be seen as He is, because the created intellect will not have so great an efficacy in seeing, as the Divine essence has to the effect of being seen".

This means that, the knower observes only part of the C-essence. Therefore, there are parts in the C-essence.

>It is concept utmost novel and diabolic.

I've just proved this concept by the words of Aquinas and by logic.

>And now give me answer that is not high on fumes of heresy.

>… a proof about the simplicity of God …

This proof demonstrates the simplicity of the O-essence. I am ok with this.

>>694565

>Sed contra, we do "fully" receive love of God as long as by "fully" you mean "as much as it is possible for that person". Glass is full of water, fully received water, even though there is no whole of water in the glass.

So no. If I have a cake, and i give you 2 slices because you cannot physically eat more without you vomiting, and i have 10 slices remaining, then i am not giving you the full cake, only enough for you to handle.

You believe that God created us to never fully receive his love. I find this odd. Couldn't God have created us to fully receive and partake in God's love without fully partaking in his wrath, therefore we never exhaust his essence.

>Human is union of soul and body. Beatific vision is in soul. But we are not souls. We are humans. And thus at least in Catholic theology, resurrection is obvious.

So we get resurrected and then what? Stare at the divine essence for all time? What difference does it make?

Shameless bump cos I want to read thru this thread

>>693560

>everything I don't like is autism

>>693535

"And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is One."

Divine simplicity is in the scriptures. Trying to deny this doctrine either makes God incoherent or reduces him to the status of demiurge or Zeus. I don't know much about Palamas but if he denies this, than he's just fundamentally wrong, and everything that flows from this falsehood is also wrong.

>>704563

Palamas doesn’t deny divine simplicity, he denied the scholastic absolute divine simplicity which is different to divine simplicity