# John of Damascus (God) An Analytical Review



## RamistThomist (May 12, 2015)

Why should we read John of Damascus? In many ways he had one of the first systematic theology and formed much of the foundation for later dogmatics. He is clearer than most Fathers and far more succinct. Because his work is so important, I am dividing this review into four parts: Prolegomena and God, Creation, Christology, and other stuff. 

Goal of this review: to allow future readers of John to dive in and aid them through some technical terminology. 

I read through Damascene's On the Orthodox Faith in 2009. At the time I had hyper-Palamite lenses on and really didn't let Damascene speak for himself. I am rereading him now, years and paradigms later. He's really quite interesting. Contrary to the neo-Palamite Orthodox today, he isn't afraid of "rationality" or using proofs for God's existence. In fact, he sounds VERY Aristotelian. To be fair, he does anticipate later Orthodox mysticism by calling God "hyper-ousia" (I.4).

_Existence and Nature of God_

He does use Scripture and does allude to the Fathers, but the main thrust of his argument is natural theology. His argument for God's existence is as follows:

(1) All things that exist are either created or uncreated. 
(2) If created, then mutable and subject to change and perishing
(3) But things that are created must be the work of some Maker

Damascene anticipates the infinite regress rebuttal and handles it in an amusing (if not entirely convincing manner)

(4) "For if he had been created, he must have been created by someone, and so on until we arrive at something uncreated."

Perhaps not the most persuasive argument, but historically it is very telling. The holy fathers were not averse to using "logic," even logic apart from Scriptural and Patristic considerations, to prove points about God.

Damascene follows standard Patristic and classical usage in that the nature of God is incomprehensible.

(5) His essence is unknowable

How then can we speak about God? In what sounds like a later Palamite move, John says, "God does not show forth his nature, but the qualities of his nature" (1.4). Is this the same thing as saying "We can't know God's nature but only his energies"? Not quite. John does not use any of the cognates of energein. In fact, for John energia means activity that manifests the essence, which does not seem to be the same thing as a qualit.

_A note on apophaticism
_
If we say, as John does, that God is not "darkness," but above darkness. Not light, but above light--why can't we carry it through and say "God is not love, but above love." God is not a, b...z. If God is above every reference point, then how can we truly predicate anything of him? We are no longer using analogous language but equivocal language.

_Pre-Notes on the Word
_
He doesn't deal with Christology until Book 3 but he gives short comments here. 

(6) God always possesses his Word, proceeding from and existing within Himself (I.6).

John reasons analogously from our words proceeding from our minds, and is not identical with mind but not separate from it, so the Word has its subsistence from God. Probably not the best analogy in the world. I find it ironic that we are always warned against Theistic Analogies, but John and Augustine go haywire on them.

(7) If a Word, then the force of the Word, which is the Spirit (1.7).

_God and Being
_
(8) God is outside of being, yet the fountain of all being (I.8).

Along with this John gives the classic summary that God is one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, and one energy. John then gives a classic summary of the Trinity, but I want to highlight one point:

(9) "Whenever we say God is the origin of and greater than the Son, we mean in respect of causation."

Here is the problem: Isn't a cause different in substance to an effect? Muller in Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics maintains this is the inevitable conclusion. Which is probably why Western scholastics didn't go this route, but opted for _Principium_ instead.

_Back to Divine Attributes
_
(5*) Goodness et al belong to the nature but do not explain it.

What does that even mean? 

(5') We do not apprehend the essence itself, but only the attributes of the essence.

Will this hold water? Later thinkers, with echoes from Athanasius, identify attributes and essence. If we apprehend the attributes, how are we not apprehending the essence also? Of course, we do not exhaust or comprehend the essence of God (who would even want to?), but surely comprehension doesn't mean the same as apprehension.

_Angelic Personalities
_
(10) Angels are not spatial entities, but a mental presence and energy.

This is quite interesting and is backed up by numerous accounts of spiritual warfare. An angel cannot be in more than one place at one time ("cannot energize two different places at the same time").

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## MW (May 12, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> (5*) Goodness et al belong to the nature but do not explain it.
> 
> What does that even mean?



Humans can only describe the divine essence by means of the attributes; they do not define it. They apprehend, but cannot comprehend. "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."


----------



## RamistThomist (May 12, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > (5*) Goodness et al belong to the nature but do not explain it.
> ...



I agree, and while I do not have John's Greek text in front of me, I wonder if he operates on the distinction between apprehension and comprehension.


----------



## MW (May 12, 2015)

ReformedReidian said:


> I agree, and while I do not have John's Greek text in front of me, I wonder if he operates on the distinction between apprehension and comprehension.



This is what I understand The Orthodox Faith to teach "in essence," that is, "by apprehending its attributes."


----------



## earl40 (May 13, 2015)

MW said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, and while I do not have John's Greek text in front of me, I wonder if he operates on the distinction between apprehension and comprehension.
> ...



These attributes we apprehend are still only creaturally or communicated attributes. Correct?


----------



## MW (May 13, 2015)

earl40 said:


> These attributes we apprehend are still only creaturally or communicated attributes. Correct?



This might become confusing because I was making a dual reference which included both "the orthodox faith" as a thing believed and John's Exposition of it as an human writing.

So far as knowledge of God is concerned, God's attributes are divine and essential. They are never creaturely. Our apprehension is creaturely but what is apprehended is infinite. This entails that we proceed by the "way of negation," which occurs when we remove the creaturely limitation from the attribute we apprehend.


----------



## earl40 (May 13, 2015)

MW said:


> So far as knowledge of God is concerned, God's attributes are divine and essential. They are never creaturely. Our apprehension is creaturely but what is apprehended is infinite. This entails that we proceed by the "way of negation," which occurs when we remove the creaturely limitation from the attribute we apprehend.



I thank you for your time on this matter. So could we say we can apprehend and not comprehend what God is in His infinite attributes (so far as knowledge is concerned) but we cannot say we posses these attributes as He has them in Himself as I have read.

Jacob I apologize about the derail of your OP for this subject I have found to be fascinating and delightful in the studying Our God.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 13, 2015)

earl40 said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > So far as knowledge of God is concerned, God's attributes are divine and essential. They are never creaturely. Our apprehension is creaturely but what is apprehended is infinite. This entails that we proceed by the "way of negation," which occurs when we remove the creaturely limitation from the attribute we apprehend.
> ...



You didn't deraile it. That is one of the main reasons I read and post (critical) reviews on the church fathers: to get us talking about God.


----------



## MW (May 13, 2015)

earl40 said:


> So could we say we can apprehend and not comprehend what God is in His infinite attributes (so far as knowledge is concerned) but we cannot say we posses these attributes as He has them in Himself as I have read.



We definitely don't possess the attributes as He has them in Himself. On the first option, yes, we are apprehending God Himself, but it is as He has revealed Himself. We must trust that His revelation is true but we must also acknowledge that the truth is in accord with our limited capacities.


----------

