Comments on Nielsen's Nook: 5. Pseudo-Dionysius (1 of 2)

Backpedalling is certainly acceptable. As Lewis no...

2006-05-22T14:56:00.000-07:00

Backpedalling is certainly acceptable. As Lewis noted, sometimes we have to go backward before we can go forward. :)

The Cappadocian notion is at odds with Augustine's notion because Augustine collapses the One and the Nous so that God is be-ing. He denies as do later Scholastics, that God is the common being of creatures, and in this sense God is hyper ousia. But this leaves untouched the idea that God is be-ing. Self subsisting be-ing is still be-ing nonetheless. For Thomas, what differentiates us from God is our composition and God's lack of it. What distinguishes us from God for Scotus is the intensity of our be-ing. For both though, God is still most properly called be-ing or esse.

For the Cappadocians as well as for Maximus, God is being or esse/activity, only at the level of the divine names. That is, no divine name refers to God ad intra. God is both being and not being. Therefore, the distinction between God as esse or activity and God as hyper-ousia is not epistemological as it is for Thomas, or formal as it is for Scotus. Contra Thomas, the activities exist as metaphysically distinct apart from our judgments. Contra Scotus, they are different acts, some of which have a begining while others do not, while all of them are uncreated. Consequently, the plurality in God is not only real but wider than the plurality of the divine persons. God's nature therefore is wider than his essence.

How's that?

For some bibliography on the pre-scholastic use see Carabine's, The Unknown God: Negative Theology in the Platonic Tradition: Plato to Eriugena.

A-4236,I believe you are right about the hyper ous...

2006-05-21T18:04:00.000-07:00

A-4236,

I believe you are right about the hyper ousia distinction. In reading I have done since our last interchange in Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, I have come across not only the distinction of hyper ousia but the tension that it has with Augustine's notion of God as being.

So if you will allow me to back-pedal a little bit, I would say that if we mean by God as being the same thing we mean when we say that a human is a being then I think we encounter quite a difficulty. In my limited exposure to Thomas, I have found that he is conscious of this problem and certainly goes about attempting to resolve it in a way different than that of Scotus, who seems to speak of being univocally and hence problematically.

I will say that Calvin, Bavinck and Van Til in their unique ways are trying to maintain and underscore the transcendence of God's essence while making analogy when speaking of his image, humanity.

Thanks for the corrective here.

The notion of hyper ousia is found in Athanasius, ...

2006-05-19T11:47:00.000-07:00

The notion of hyper ousia is found in Athanasius, the Cappadocians and Cyril, not to mention Maximus. God is only said to be being at the level of the divine names or energies. It is at odds with the Augustinian notion of God as being. For Augustine the Good is being, whereas for the Easterners, the Good is beyond being.

Regarding the Reformed writers mentioned (Calvin, ...

2006-05-15T07:06:00.000-07:00

Regarding the Reformed writers mentioned (Calvin, Bavinck, Berkouwer, Hodge and Van Til) it should be noted that 4 of the 5 of them were very much in a continental tradition which insulated those who came after Thomas Reid from his Common Sense Realism and the analytic philosophyical tradition that flowed from Britain. Hodge, the exception, was influenced by said traditions; however, he was also very well versed and interacted much with continental writers such as Bavinck, who has only in the last few years had his major work Gereformanda Dogmatiek translated into English.

Acolyte,Thank you very much for you interaction. ...

2006-05-15T07:01:00.000-07:00

Acolyte,

Thank you very much for you interaction. Let me respond in a threefold manner.

First, I am not speaking of the Reformed Tradition generally; rather, I am saying that conceptually Calvin, Bavinck, Berkouwer, Hodge and Van Til have maintained such notions. Part of the problem between East and West has been a difficulty to get past the words and into the concepts. If I understand the history of the Fifth Ecumenical Council this was a significant hurdle that was addressed regarding Cyril of Alexandria. He had not used the words of Chalcedonians and had been denounced a Monophysite. When his work began to be read conceptually it was seen that he was not Monophysite after all but was simply seeking to uphold the integrity of Christ against the Nestorians.

Second, the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Justinians writings in so far as I have read of them does not speak of a notion of hyper ousia. Meyendorff has not mentioned it in his book. Therefore, my comment about the specific Reformed writers would apply to conciliar conceptions that do not seem to include hyper ousia.

Finally, there is much of the fifth council and the works of John Meyendorff and other Eastern writers that I have not read and perhaps you might have insight into where I am misreading or misunderstanding. I am open to your input. Thank you again for your interaction.

I don't think its fair to say that the Reformed tr...

2006-05-14T23:18:00.000-07:00

I don't think its fair to say that the Reformed tradition has maintained the same idea concerning the absolute transcendence of the divine essence since they have not adocated the idea that God is hyper ousia and they have maintained the doctrine of divine simplicity, either in its Thomistic or Scotistic falvors. part of the problem is whether by essence you mean ousia or esse, because historically, between East and West the two terms are not univocally employed.

Nice post! I greatly appreciate the focus on God'...

2006-05-10T09:28:00.000-07:00

Nice post! I greatly appreciate the focus on God's transcendence that comes through with PD and the Greek fathers. I look forward to part II!

Cheers,
Cynthia