Www.WorldHistory.Biz
Login *:
Password *:
     Register

 

4-05-2015, 14:47

The Doctrine

The activity of Akindynos is connected to the controversies of the time. He refutes the main thesis of Palamas who distinguishes, with regard to creation, one natural and one creative energy of God. According to Akindynos’ critical account, this thesis points to an objective and real division of God in essence and energies, introduces multiplicity in the simplicity of divine nature and, moreover, establishes a mediator between God and creation.

Akindynos himself differentiates between two uses of the term ‘‘energy.’’ ‘‘Energy’’ in its improper sense denotes the natural qualities of God, which are identical with the indivisible divine essence. This highest ‘‘energy’’ is uncreated and not shared in, absolutely inaccessible and indeed invisible. ‘‘Energy’’ in its proper sense is used for the Charismata, Gifts, and the other creations of God, which are created for our good. This created energy is the visible action by which God’s deeds are expressed. Unlike Barlaam, Akindynos does not deny the presence of the uncreated energies within creation. But the created grace is the bearer of the uncreated one, which enables the deification of man, i. e., the realization of the uncreated grace. The deification takes place, thanks to the Incarnation of the divine Logos. The teaching of Akindynos is entirely christological. According to him there can be no other access to divinity except for Christ, the sacraments and the practicing of supernatural love, called forth by the sacramental participation.

Akindynos does not reject the opportunity for man to participate in God, but he insists that the mystery of God and his actions are not intelligible. God can be partaken of only in the way the center of a circle is shared by all radii and the circumference of the circle; these do proceed from the center of the circle, without coinciding with it or comprising it completely. Here no distinction is presumed between essence and energies. It should be also noticed that by the different beings God is partaken of in a different way, depending on the potential of their essence. This fact would remain completely unexplicable, Akindynos argues, if we had to do with a participation in the eternal divine essence, whereby it would necessarily be an eternal participation of the creature in God. Thus the created would be coeternal with the Creator.

The actual participation in God is not accomplished in the field of the essential being. It is likening to God through unification with Him within divine love. The participation in God is neither essential identity, nor a possession of a common energy, but an interpersonal community of love. Love is characterized as an ‘‘uninhabited relation.’’ A decisive peculiarity of this relation is the metaphysical gap between the loving and the loved. Within the relation of love takes place the union of man and God and exactly in it occurs the deification of man.

Akindynos does not accept the negative syllogistic of Barlaam. He claims that his own theses are based entirely on the tradition of the Fathers and their adequate interpretation. The authenticity is said to be the decisive criterion for the truth of the theological statements. Akindynos’ argumentation relies fundamentally on literary critics, which is applied in terms of a scrupulous hermeneutic. The basic principle here is studying the language of the Fathers and separating the polemical, metaphorical, and analogical expressions from the properly dogmatic statements. From that point of view is raised the requirement for taking also into consideration the spiritual context, in which the given text appeared, as well as the intertextual connections in which the concrete statement is made. Akindynos aims to show that Palamas uses the statements of the Fathers incorrectly, with no consideration for their own context, undertaking arbitrary abbreviations and even additions. Besides, Akindynos claims that Palamas did not comprehend the symbolic character of the theological discourse and its symbolic figures.

See also: > Aristotelianism in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew Traditions > Barlaam of Calabria

>  Demetrios Kydones > Gregory Palamas > Metaphysics, Byzantine > Nicholas Chamaetos Kabasilas > Nikephoros Gregoras > Philosophical Theology, Byzantine > Philosophy, Byzantine > Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

>  Thomism, Byzantine



 

html-Link
BB-Link