Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > OMNI is not God

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/12/2002 4:13 AM (GMT -6)

This topic (The OMNIs) was discussed at length, and all around, top to bottom and side to side on CVM. I ran across this webpage, and thought it a good summation of the EO contribution to this discussion.

monachos.net/patristics/epinoia_ennoia.html

Here are a few snippets:

Epistemological questions concerning humanity and its ability to know God had long been a part of the Trinitarian Controversy

The Cappadocian teaching on God’s intelligibility was largely formulated in reaction to Eunomius’ Apologia of 359

It is only when the Father’s ou0si/a itself is defined as ingenerate, that Eunomius can say, for example:

"He could never come into contact with generation,
so as to communicate His own nature to something generated."(Eunomius)[10]

But is this logical connection of a0ge/nnhtoj with the essential nature of the divinity an acceptable connection? Eunomius insists that it is; and more than simply acceptable, it is a required perception, a revealed and perceived truth (e32nnoia) about God, not simply a conclusion reached by the ‘human apprehension’ (kat’e0pi/noian, here translating the phrase with the pejorative flavour in which Eunomius took it) of His qualities.[11] Ingeneracy must not be seen as an attribute of God, but as God: God is The Ingenerate.

Here the Cappadocian Fathers could not agree. While it may be acceptable to say that God is ingenerate, to say that God is ingeneracy crosses the boundary of proper expression. To describe the Father’s attributes is one thing; to consider any of His attributes to be equal to His essence is quite another. Gregory of Nyssa leaves no room for equivocation:

As the essence is simple and not simplicity, so also the essence is ingenerate and not ingeneracy.[12]

A distinction is to be drawn between how God exists, which can be known through his activities and described through attributive adjectives, e.g. simple, ingenerate, good; and what God is, i.e. His essence, which cannot be known at all nor can it be described in words (‘no suitable word has been found to express the Divine nature’[13]). This insistence upon the unintelligibility of God’s ou0si/a is in fundamental opposition to Eunomius’ belief that the divine essence can be known easily and, in fact, fully by means of human apprehension:[14] by his view, one simply needs accurate terminology.

Absolute transcendence, including transcendence of human knowledge, is a defining characteristic of the divine ou0si/a in Cappadocian thought. From this it must not be assumed that Basil and the two Gregories believed God to be unknowable in all respects, but simply that they believed His essential nature to be beyond the limits of human comprehension. God’s inner nature is ineffable. While humanity may discern much about the divinity ‘both from the wonders which manifest themselves in His works and from the names which express the manifold variety of His power’,[16] it nonetheless remains true that ‘there is no faculty in human nature adequate to the full comprehension of the divine essence (ou0si/a)’.[17] This distinction between God’s intelligibility in certain respects on the one hand, and His complete unintelligibility on the other, is at the very heart of a fundamental conception shared by the three Cappadocians: that God’s essence is distinct from His actions, His attributes, or His energies.

Says Gregory of Nyssa: "He makes Himself known that He is ‘by the greatness and beauty of His creatures proportionately’ to the things that are known, vouchsafing to us the gift of faith by the operations of His hands, but not the comprehension of what He is."[18]

And Basil: "Created things manifest wisdom, art and power, but not essence."[19]

And Gregory of Nazianzus, having stressed that one cannot know ‘[God’s] primal and pure nature (fu/sij) in itself’,[20] states that man must come to "Recognize God through the beauty and order of things that are seen, and to use our vision as a guide to that which is above vision, but not to be deprived of God because of the magnificence of what is seen."[21]

This sharp distinction between God Himself and God as He is manifest through His activities within creation will be taken up and further refined by the much later Byzantine hesychasts, who hearkened back to the Cappadocians for the foundations of their own doctrine. Writes St Gregory Palamas in the mid-1300s:

"In refuting Eunomius, who claimed that the essence of God is revealed by created things, St Basil the Great writes that ‘created things manifest wisdom, art and power, but not essence’. Thus the divine energy made manifest by created things is both uncreated and yet not God’s essence."[22]

Hope that this is useful to someone.

PoW

Edited by - potonwheel on 05/12/2002 09:17:13 AM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:55 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual