Don’t Get Comfortable in the Devil’s World

Theology
1

complacency
complacency800×480 121 KB

People are preaching a false gospel. It’s the gospel of God’s love, but never His wrath. Blessings, but never repentance. That’s not the whole Gospel. “Jesus… delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thessalonians 1:10). Wrath is real, and grace only makes sense because judgment is real.

Satan doesn’t need you to bow down and worship him, he just wants you to take it easy. He wants you entertained and distracted, with the fire next door burning while you’re watching reality TV. Jesus called him “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31), and you can hear his music all around you. Our culture ridicules holiness and calls evil good (Isaiah 5:20). The world is doing it, and so are some pulpits who have joined the choir to sing a gospel without the cross.

But there’s another gospel, the power of God for salvation, and it changes lives. Paul said it came “not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 1:5). The result? The believers in Thessalonica turned “to God from idols, to serve the living and true God” (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Real salvation always changes direction, it’s a turning, not just a talking.

Satan won’t destroy the church from the outside if he can corrupt her from the inside. Grace becomes license, and truth becomes entertainment. That’s why the Bible says, “Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Don’t be deceived by a gospel that comforts sin instead of confronting it.

So what do we do? Stand firm. Live holy in an unholy world. Preach truth even when it costs us. Love people enough to warn them that God’s wrath is real and His mercy is available in Christ. As Paul said, “Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 15:58).

How can Christians stay steadfast in truth when so many churches are watering down the message to make people comfortable?

4 Likes
2

In Orthodox theology, the Gospel is understood as the comprehensive revelation of divine love, encompassing both mercy and judgment. The divine attributes are not in opposition; justice and love are coextensive expressions of the same divine essence. God’s wrath, as interpreted by the Fathers, is not a psychological state or emotional reaction but a metaphorical description of the encounter between uncreated holiness and created freedom that has turned from it. Saint Isaac the Syrian describes this encounter as the experience of divine love by those who reject it, such that the same divine energy which illumines the righteous becomes torment for the unrepentant. The reduction of the Gospel to themes of love and blessing without reference to repentance or divine judgment represents a theological distortion. The Apostolic kerygma presents salvation as both deliverance from wrath and transformation through participation in Christ’s death and resurrection. The salvific act of Christ presupposes human cooperation through repentance, ascetic struggle, and sacramental participation. To omit the reality of divine judgment is to obscure the seriousness of sin and the necessity of deification, which constitutes the telos of human existence. Contemporary ecclesial trends that prioritize psychological comfort or social accommodation risk separating divine mercy from divine truth. This separation is inconsistent with the patristic synthesis in which truth and love are inseparable. The Orthodox tradition maintains that holiness cannot be abstracted from obedience, and that grace operates synergistically with human freedom. The life of the Church, manifest in liturgical participation, fasting, prayer, and continual repentance, constitutes the concrete means by which the faithful remain within the sphere of truth.
The endurance of the Church against theological corruption has historically depended not on external power but on the interior life of the Holy Spirit. The discernment of truth is an ecclesial reality, preserved in the consensus of the Fathers and the sacramental life. To “stand firm” in the Pauline sense implies not only doctrinal fidelity but also the existential assimilation of truth within the believer’s life. The Orthodox response to false gospels, therefore, is not polemical but ascetical and sacramental, oriented toward purification of the intellect (nous) and restoration of the divine image. The concept of divine wrath must finally be interpreted within the larger framework of divine pedagogy. Its function is corrective and revelatory rather than arbitrary or vindictive. Within this framework, judgment is understood as the manifestation of divine truth in the eschatological order, disclosing the ultimate orientation of each person’s freedom. Hence, steadfastness in truth requires continuous spiritual vigilance, adherence to the canonical and theological tradition, and participation in the sanctifying life of the Church.

1 Like
3

See, that post sounds impressive, but it’s missing one key ingredient: the Word says what the Word says. You can keep building “Fathers” and “energies” and “synergies” as high as you like, but the Gospel is not about mystical ascent or cosmic energies, the Gospel is about the Man on the cross and the Man in the tomb.

Paul didn’t preach participation in the divine essence. He preached “Christ died for our sins, was buried, and was raised on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). The Gospel is not a cooperation; it’s a completion. Jesus didn’t say, “I’m almost finished.” He said, “It is finished” (John 19:30).

I agree, God’s love and God’s wrath are both real and they’re always at work. But His wrath is not some inner metaphor or poetic energy, it’s the holy and jealous response of God to sin. Romans 1:18 says, “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.” That’s not symbolic, that’s serious.

Grace is not God helping you paddle harder. Grace is God pulling you into the boat. Ephesians 2:8-9 says it clearly: “By grace you have been saved through faith… not of works.” Grace is not earned, it’s received. And once received, obedience is the overflow of a changed heart.

Don’t get lost in theological gymnastics that make salvation into some sort of marathon of fasting and rituals and sacraments and church traditions and ascetic practices and Greek verbosity and “Fathers” and “energies” and “synergies.” The Bible says salvation is by faith alone, through Christ alone. Everything else is spiritual white noise if it does not point to the cross.

The Gospel doesn’t need a makeover, it needs a megaphone. Jesus paid it all. Grace does the saving, faith does the trusting, and God gets the glory.

5 Likes
4

I agree that the heart of the Gospel is indeed the Cross, the Tomb, and the Resurrection. Salvation is not achieved by human striving but received through the grace of God revealed in Christ. I was introducing some of the theological language that the early Church Fathers used to describe how this grace transforms the believer’s life. Sometimes I get carried away exploring those terms, because they show how deeply the early Church reflected on what Christ accomplished for us.

The Orthodox understanding does not replace the Gospel of the Cross with philosophical ideas, but seeks to explain how the same grace that saves also sanctifies and renews us. The mystery of participation in Christ, which Paul speaks of in Galatians 2:20 and 2 Peter 1:4, is not an alternative gospel but a way of expressing that our life is united with His by faith and the Spirit.

Say with me: Salvation is by faith alone, in Christ Jesus…

2 Likes
5

I can say that, but let’s be sure that we mean the same thing when we say it.

Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ Jesus. That’s what the Gospel is all about. But the faith the Bible describes isn’t mystical participation or progressive divinization, it’s trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ. “To the one who does not work but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom 4:5).

Paul did not preach “participation in divine energies.” He preached a crucified and risen Savior who saves by faith those who believe. The Greek word pistis (faith) does not mean mystical union. It means confidence, reliance, trust. When Paul said “Christ lives in me” (Gal 2: 20), he did not mean absorption into deity. He meant a changed life empowered by the indwelling Spirit. He said the very same thing this way: “the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.”

And 2 Peter 1:4, “partakers of the divine nature”, does not mean sharing in the essence of God, it means sharing His moral likeness through regeneration (escaping “the corruption that is in the world through lust”). We become holy because His Spirit lives in us; we do not become gods in any sense.

Grace does save and sanctify. But the Word is very clear that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone (Eph 2:8-9). Anything that muddies the line between Creator and creature, or conflates justification and transformation, risks trading the cross for a philosophy. The cross is not a metaphor; it’s a transaction.

Faith unites us to Christ, not mystically, but redemptively. We don’t climb up to God; He came down to us.

2 Likes
6

Yes @bdavidc,
The only part I seek to clarify is the essence–energies teaching.

When the Fathers speak of participation in the divine energies, they are not referring to absorption into deity or any pantheistic loss of distinction. The language arises from 2 Peter 1:4 and from the early patristic conviction that salvation is not merely juridical but ontological, not in the sense of crossing an ontic boundary, but in the sense that the Incarnation truly heals and renews the human condition. To be “partakers of the divine nature” means to be restored to the likeness for which humanity was created, to live in the Spirit’s transforming presence that communicates divine life without dissolving creaturely identity.

The essence–energies distinction, then, does not blur the line between Creator and creature; it preserves it. God remains utterly transcendent in essence, yet truly present and active in His energies. This is how He remains both unknowable and personally knowable, both beyond and within creation. It is precisely because the Cross was no mere metaphor, but a real historical event, that the energies of God are now manifest as deifying grace in the sacraments and the life of the Church.

All of this, however, rests fully and entirely upon Christ, His Incarnation, His Cross, and His Resurrection. He alone is the source of grace, the revelation of the Father, and the One in whom divine life is shared with humanity.

2 Likes
7

The problem is not that we need to preserve the difference between Creator and creature, Scripture does that already in very clear terms. The real problem is whether participation in divine energies is even a biblical idea to begin with. It’s not. The apostles never spoke in that language or in that framework. They spoke of repentance, forgiveness and new life in Christ, not mystical participation in uncreated energies.

2 Peter 1: 4 says we become “partakers of the divine nature,” but the verse defines what that means, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. It’s moral and relational, not metaphysical. Through the Spirit, believers are renewed into the likeness of Christ (Romans 8: 29), not fused into the activity of the divine. Scripture never divides God into essence and energy. It speaks of His attributes, His holiness, His power, His love, but never as separable realities to be participated in.

When Paul said, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1: 27), he meant the indwelling Spirit that changes our hearts and minds (Romans 12:2). That’s sanctification, not deification. We are adopted, not absorbed (Romans 8:15). God’s grace makes us children, not little gods.

The danger of theological systems that go beyond Scripture is that they begin to explain that which God chose not to define. “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). The Word is enough. Christ crucified and risen is enough. Salvation is not participation in divine energies, it’s redemption by divine mercy.

8

@TheologyNerd @ILOVECHRIST @bdavidc
Why is the essence-energies distinction important?
To grasp the metaphysical freight of Palamas’s distinction we must first delineate its ontological architecture, rooted in Cappadocian precedents yet radicalised in hesychastic praxis. For Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, divine energeiai are the traces of the ineffable ousia, operations through which God acts ad extra without compromising intra-Trinitarian simplicity (On the Holy Spirit 16.38; Contra Eunomium II.813). Palamas, consummates this in his Triads defending the uncreated light of Tabor as energeia, not a created effect, but God Himself in self-manifestation: “The superessential essence of God is not to be identified with His energies, but the energies are not something else besides Him”. The essece abides in apophatic reserve, Deus Absconditus, ungraspable lest it annihilate, while energies effect kataphatic immanence: the Father’s monarchy eternally generating the Son’s image, spirated through the Spirit’s procession, cascading into creation as deifying principles per Maximus the Confessor Ambigua 7. Metaphysically, this safeguards theandric synergy, participation in divinity occurs via uncreated operations averting panethesitc collapse and deistic distance. As Bradshaw says, the distinction maintains a balance between two assertions..

  1. Our communion is not with a created thing by similitude..[and]
  2. God essence remains utterly transcendent, enabling a panentheistic ontology where the world inheres in God’s energies without spatial enclosure.

This relational primacy, energeia as revelatory without exhaustive revelation. Isn’t it prefiguring quantum mechanics’ own subversion of substance ontologies? In Aristotelian terms, essece (ti esti, what-is-it) yields to mode (pos esti, how-it-is), which is Nyssa’s epektasis (eternal stretching) toward the Infinite. Palamas’s framework thus anticipates a metaphysics where transcendence and immanence coinhere in perichoretic tension, the former veiled, the latter, veiling-yet-unveiling.
Lemme remember by pre-college materials..
Quantum mechanics inaugurated by Plank’s quanta, and Bohr’s complementarity dismantles the classical corpuscular paradigm, which started a relational metaphysics wherein entities subsist not as self-sufficient substances but as dispositions within a probabilistic web. Niels Bohr’s Copenhagen interpretation posits wave-particle duality not as epistemic incompleteness but ontological complementarity: the electron is neither a localised particle, nor a delocalized wave, but a relational potency, its reality emergent in measurement contexts. I remember Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle that ΔxΔp≥ h/4π, which means error in measurement of position x error in measurement of momentum will always be greater or equal to plank’s constant/4pi…this relational interlocks position and momentum, rendering observer and observed a couple in triadic relation (observer-medium-observed), as N. David Mermin says that “Correlations only have a meaning, the correlata…dont. If A and B are correlated what counts is the correlation, not A or B”.
The Entanglement (EPR paradox, Bell’s inequalities) says that spatially separated particles exhibit non-local correlations, defying local realism, affirming a holistic holomovement (Bohm’s implicate order) where the universe unfolds as undivided flux.
Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum’s dispositionalist metaphysics formalises this quantum turn: fundamental entities are powers, actual yet unmanifested potencies, clustered in pandispositionalism, where causation transpires a mutual manifestation partnerships sans Humean regularities or necessitarian laws. QM particles, described dispositionally like spin as probabilistic tendency, exemplify this, that superpositions embody unmanifested actualities, collapsing not into discrete events but temporally extended processes, their absences (unrealised freedoms) causally efficacious as constraints per Terrence Deacon’s Incomplete Nature. Metaphysically, this yields a dual-aspect monism of presence/absence: reality as emergent from latent dispositions, proliferating in tensed multiverses via quantum indeterminacy, where formal causation (geometric probablities) channels orthograde entropy into contragrade teleodynamics (life/mind as holes preserving form)…
Such a framework, a non-reductive, processual mirror of Palamas’s energeia-primacy, just as divine operations reveal yet withhold essece, QM’s correlations disclose relational structures without localising essences (like quark flavours as modal dispositions, not categorical substrates).

1 Like
9

No philosophy book is required to know who God is. What you need is the Word of God. The Bible doesn’t separate God into an essence and energy. It never speaks of God as a divine chemical reaction with God’s nature divided into being and doing. God isn’t fragmented, He’s one. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). When God acts, all of God is in action. His power doesn’t ooze from His essence, it’s the living God Himself, exercising His will. Paul said, “It is God who works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). The word energeō in Greek means “to be actively at work.” It’s not an energy current that we can draw on; it’s the Lord working by His Spirit in those who are His.

So when Peter says we’re “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1: 4), he isn’t saying that we are mini-demi-gods. The Greek word koinōnos means “to share in fellowship.” It’s not a being or nature thing, it’s a character thing. We partake of God’s moral character, not His divine essence. You don’t become holy because you’re fused to God—you become holy because His Spirit lives in you and changes you from the inside out. That’s transformation not deification.

When Jesus was transfigured and His face shone like the sun (Matthew 17: 2), the disciples weren’t gazing at an “uncreated energy.” They were seeing the glory of God in the Son. John said, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). That glory wasn’t abstracted from God, it was God glorified in human flesh. Jesus said to Philip, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9). You don’t need to see mystical light to find God, you need to see Christ.

The Bible never teaches that God is mixed into the universe or that creation is infused with divine energies. That’s pantheism with a halo and incense. The Bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). That’s not wishy-washy. That’s a clear dividing line, He is the Creator, and all else is creation. God fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23: 24), but that doesn’t mean that everything is made of God. It means He’s everywhere present, but not composed of everything. God rules His creation, He doesn’t dissolve into it.

And please, stop trying to equate God to quantum physics. You won’t find Him in quarks or quantum field theories, you will find Him in the pages of His Word. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:29). You don’t need a microscope to know the Maker, you need a relationship with Jesus Christ. Because “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). In Christ has been revealed all that God is and ever will be. He’s not a divine energy field or a mystical essence, He’s the living Lord who saves, reigns, and will return.

Don’t go chasing after shadows of “divine energy.” The power of God is not some philosophical abstraction, it is a personal reality. His power has a name and that name is Jesus.

1 Like
10

Brother, I’m just sharing an analogy to show why the essence–energies distinction matters. These are thoughts I’ve gathered through study over the years, whether I fully agree or not, and I felt it might be an interesting perspective to explore together.
I’ll try again…@bdavidc, @ILOVECHRIST can join too…
The analogies I gave deepen when we map Palamite categories onto quantum formalism. Palamas’ four indistinguishable entities in cognition, the observer (horōn), medium (di’hou) and object (eis ho) and its quiddity (ti auto estin) evoke QM’s measurement problem; see, the act of observation entangles the observer and the observed, obliterating classical distinctions, much as Palamas critiques Aristotelian categories for failing to transcend contradictions. Superposition, defying excluded middle (A or not-A) parallels Palamas’s quantum lgoic avant la lettre: contradictions are not resolved by dichotomy but sublated in relational energeia, where essence abides hyperousios, revealed through interactive veils. Entaglement analogies divine perichoresis, that non-local unity sans spatial merger, as God’s energies interpenetrate creation without essence-compromise, which is similar to Bell’s theorem’s holistic violations of locality.
Flavius Raslau’s “powers theology” consummates this, that nature’s powers are God’s energeiai, unmanifested potencies as latent divine actualities, enablign strong emergence (life from physico-chemical constraints) without pantheistic reduction. Deacon;s absences, causal holes structuring teleodynamics, map to Palamas’s apophasis: the essence’s hiddenness as generative absence, channelling orthograde theosis. Quantum indeterminacy thus becomes metaphysical kenosis, God’s self-emptying potentiates participatory ascent, where uncreated energies deify via synergeia, as in hesychastic vision or eucharist tran-elementation.
Thomistic analogy (efficient causation at distance), Palamite energeia affirms direct, uncreated communion, resolving QM’s observer-dependence: scientific theōria (contemplation) as ascetic praxis, unveiling divine operations sans essence-possession, “We run after the smell, the scent of the essence, without having the essence within our hands” (Palamas).
Palamas’s fourfold relational epistemology mirrors the participatory logic of quantum measurement.
My aim isn’t to conflate theology with physics, but to illustrate how Palamas’s metaphysics anticipates a participatory ontology that even modern science, in its deepest questions, seems to echo. Where reason reaches its horizon, revelation illumines not by replacing, but by transfiguring understanding.

11

We are what we eat. There was a king who once grew the most tasteful wheat. Whose fields were tainted with weeds seeded by his enemy. And now the whole harvest has been gathered from the field and sits on your plate. Do you eat of the weeds or the wheat? Does what you preach sustain you? Or anyone, really?

The weeds cannot nourish you, or heal you. In fact, they may make you very sick and turn your neighbors against you for offering them such to eat.

But those who know God will known the fruit of His hand. While others will starve and fade away, forcing down that which is untrue and unwise.

2 Likes
12

Theology that lacks grounding in Christ risks becoming like tares among wheat, superficially appealing but spiritually empty or even detrimental. At the same time, disciplined study of metaphysical distinctions, such as the essence-energies framework, or careful philosophical analogies, need not be regarded as weeds. When approached with humility, prayer, and always oriented toward Christ, such reflections can deepen one’s understanding of the ways in which God communicates Himself to creation. These studies illuminate the invisible and prepare the mind to receive divine wisdom, enhancing one’s participation in the fruit of God’s hand.

1 Like
13

The real problem is whether participation in divine energies is even a biblical idea to begin with. It’s not. The apostles never spoke in that language or in that framework. They spoke of repentance, forgiveness and new life in Christ, not mystical participation in uncreated energies.

The language which our Orthodox friend uses might sound strange to Western ears, but if I might unpack and try to translate this into a more Western-sounding theological framework:

Scripture speaks, quite often, of our invitation and call as believers to cooperate with God. A few examples in Scripture; when St. Paul speaks of the apostolic work of proclaiming the Gospel in 1 Corinthians he writes:

”For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.” - 1 Corinthians 3:9

After having spoken of how we are saved by grace, through faith rather than works, the Apostle adds:

”For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” - Ephesians 2:10

This language speaks of cooperation with God. We see other language such as,

“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” - Ephesians 4:30

and

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” - Galatians 5:16

There is this common refrain in Scripture to obey God, to walk with God, to live in accordance with the Holy Spirit (and that the Holy Spirit enables and empowers us to live faithful and godly lives pursuing holiness). This is a relational cooperation; our union with Christ, by the grace of God means we have the Holy Spirit living in us, and in this new reality–a new man and new creation–we are invited and called to live lives of godliness and holiness, to walk and live in accordance with God’s will.

The word “energies” might sound strange, but this is simply a literal translation of the Greek word energeia, which is almost always translated as “works”. God in His acts, God in what God does; God’s gracious condescension and giving of HImself, and the call for us to live and abide in Him by the Spirit.

That is a more familiar way of understanding this language for those of us who grew up with distinctly Western theological categories. As Protestants we have been shaped by centuries of distinctively Western theological language; so the Eastern theological lexicon can sound strange to Western ears. But both East and West are relying on the same substance of faith which we encounter in Scripture; and while there are differences and disagreements (and we shouldn’t ignore or shrug those off) it’s helpful to understand that oftentimes East and West are getting at the same thing, but the semantics can be very different.

In the historically Protestant, going back to the Reformation itself, the language of Justification has always included the idea of what is called the Mystical Union (Latin: Unio Mystica). The word “mystical” might get a side-eye from many Protestants today, but what is meant here is that Scripture reveals (the Greek word for a revealed truth is mysterion aka a “mystery”) that we have a true union with Christ–we are in Christ and Christ is in us; this isn’t merely flowery semantics, Scripture really does mean to say that there is a real union between the believer and Jesus, in our Justification, and which is lived-out and expressed in our Sanctification. As we are called, in Christ, to lives of godliness, and walking in accord with the Spirit who lives in us by the grace of God, through faith. So that the Christian life is a life wherein we have not only been renewed (regeneration) but are being renewed (sanctification). This is a mystical union with Christ, this isn’t esoteric, occult gibberish; it’s substantive biblical historical Christian faith. By grace we have been invited to share in God’s life in Christ, by the Holy Spirit; in this we have been made new, are being renewed, and shall at the resurrection attain the fullness thereof. This is good, solid, basic Christian teaching, that we should hold fast to–no matter our denominational background.

2 Likes
14

One of the remarkable evidences of The Holy Spirit is His work of unity. One of the first expressions of Holy Spirit Unity in the church was causing everyone to hear The Word of God in their own language; in a verbal construction that they could internalize. @TheologyNerd, you have joined into that work here; helping the church hear The Word of God in their own language.

Thank-you
KP

3 Likes
15

Once again, you are trying to change the scripture, but your entire structure is not present in Scripture. Use the bible and not you’re made up ideas. The Word of God never speaks of God as having “essence and energies” or “quantum entanglement.” These are human concepts attempting to speak about God through the lenses of philosophy and science. Paul warns Christians about this very practice: “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men… and not according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

Scripture is clear that God is one, not split up into metaphysical tiers and processes. “The LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35). His might is not a distinct “energy,” but His own nature in action. When God does something, it is simply God doing it, not some subordinate “emanation” of God. Isaiah 46: 10 says, “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.” That is not essence and energy; that is sovereignty.

You can cross-correlate Palamas and physics as much as you like, but it still doesn’t make it true. Revelation does not require the accompaniment of quantum theory to be relevant, it is relevant on its own terms. God has revealed Himself through His Word, not speculative systems. “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Stick to the revealed, not the invented.

2 Likes
16

You need to stop falling for that stuff. It’s the same bait that the serpent used in Eden, “you’ll be wiser if you think beyond what God said.” You’re still promoting a man-made philosophy and calling it revelation. Scripture doesn’t tell us to “deepen understanding through metaphysical distinctions.” It tells us to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 3:18). That growth comes through the Word, not speculative frameworks.

God doesn’t communicate Himself through abstract “essence-energies.” He revealed Himself fully in Christ. “No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). If your theology needs Palamas to explain how God works, you’ve already left Scripture behind. The Holy Spirit doesn’t prepare minds through mystical philosophy but through truth, “Sanctify them through Thy truth; Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).

So no, those “reflections” don’t illuminate anything. They darken counsel with words without knowledge (Job 38:2). The only light that reveals God is the light of His Word, not the flicker of human imagination.

1 Like
17

Noted, @bdavidc sir. I simply wanted to share some cross-correlations I’ve explored — mostly for the joy of study. In my free time I like to integrate physics, mathematics, theology, and philosophy; it’s a fascinating exercise, even if I usually avoid bringing the physics side into theological discussions because the analogies can get abstract. Still, if God is Truth (which He is), then all genuine truths, scientific, mathematical, or theological, must ultimately converge. Truth cannot contradict Truth; the true supports the true.
About the essence-energies part, theologynerd has explained it beautifully..

Peace
Sam

1 Like
18

No, that’s just fancy religious talk trying to make philosophy sound biblical. You can’t take a Greek word like energeia, stretch it beyond how Scripture uses it, and then pretend it means we “participate in divine energies.” That’s not exegesis, that’s imagination.

Paul never said we share in God’s energies. He said God works in us, His power, not His nature (Philippians 2:13). The “union with Christ” you’re talking about isn’t mystical absorption; it’s faith-based relationship. “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27) isn’t metaphysics, it’s salvation.

The apostles didn’t preach “energies,” they preached repentance and forgiveness of sins through the blood of Jesus (Luke 24:47). You can quote Palamas or Latin unio mystica all day, but none of that is in the Bible. It’s theology built on sand.

Let’s call it what it is: you’re trying to blend Scripture with speculation and call it the same gospel. It’s not. The moment you replace the Word of God with philosophical categories, you step out of truth and into confusion. God doesn’t need your metaphysics, He speaks plainly, and His Word is enough.

1 Like
19

No, that is not the Holy Spirit’s work here. That is twisting Scripture to a false gospel. The Spirit unites us in truth, not philosophical word games. The miracle at Pentecost was not God translating man’s concepts; it was God speaking His Word in all languages so people could repent and believe the Gospel (Acts 2:38).

The Holy Spirit does not change the Word to match man’s systems. He convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8). When man starts “translating” false teaching into new theological systems, that is not unity, that is confusion. “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Unity built on the destruction or re-writing of Scripture is counterfeit. True unity is in the truth of Christ crucified and risen, not the mixing of biblical terms with mystical philosophy.

20

No, TheologyNerd didn’t articulate it well. He perverted and added to Scripture, just as you are. The Bible does not require philosophy, physics, or metaphysics to explain God. The apostles preached Christ crucified, not “essence and energies”. Truth is already made known in Jesus (John 14:6). Anything added to that is a false gospel (Galatians 1:8).