ORLAPUBS P. R258: ESSENCE vs. NATURE

DEIFICATION (Apothéosis) IN GOD'S
UNCREATED ESSENCE OR DIVINIZATION
(Théosis) IN HIS UNCREATED
ENERGIES AND NATURE?

The term "nature" has been very lubricious, both in Orthodox writings and in more recent philosophical literature. The only anchor we have is that St. Peter wrote (1 Peter 1:4) that we are to become partakers of the divine Nature--not the divine Essence.

A vital distinction between East and West is that the Orthodox speak of partaking of the divine Energies, since the uncreated Essence is as imparticipable as unknowable; while the West speaks of God's Essence as actus purus (i.e. "pure Energy," which takes on the static sense of "a state of pure actualization/realization") and includes existing, knowing, willing, and loving in the divine Essence. The Latin Scholastics divided the supernatural into two categories, each with two subdivisions: (i) according to "substance" and according to mode; (ii) the absolutely supernatural (including Sanctifying Grace, which, however, is not uncreated) and the relatively supernatural or præternatural. (Infused knowledge, say they, is natural for the Angels, etc., not supernatural for human beings.)

It is expedient to begin with the adjectives essential and natural (as well as St. Dionysios's (h)yperessential and our English supernatural). One uses essential for what is necessary if a thing is to be what it is and natural for what promotes or fosters a thing's nature and well-being. Non-essential and counternatural have the contrary senses, though unnatural is a bit ambiguous in being either properly neutral (neither natural nor counternatural) or counternatural. Greek hyperessential refers to Being beyond being, Essence beyond essences. English supernatural has to do with what is beyond the essential powers and energies of nature, while præternatural (supranatural) refers more explicitly to what is not counternatural while not being strictly natural. A miracle may be judged one way or the other. None of these terms refer to aberrations, though the connotation of being unprecedented or exceptional may accompany præternatural. The noëtic inhabitants of Heaven--Angels, Archangels, Cherubim, and Seraphim--are supernatural in comparison with humans but natural with respect to their own beings.

Something can be preternatural or abnormal without being unnatural (including counternatural). It is sloppy thinking to confuse normal (a statistical concept) with natural (non-statistical). Since the Fall, what is normal is not natural. The "blameless passions" (adiávleta páthe) of hunger, thirst, and the like often get perverted in counternatural and in fact sinful ways as the result of the ego-orientation associated with ‘amartía and death. (It gets turned upside-down in advice to “stop putting yourself down, and start loving yourself”—not to speak of letting soteriology usurp the primacy of Worship.)

     If we understand that essence lies more in the conceptual realm, being more of an abstraction than nature, we understand that nature is more concrete and (in a way) more perceptual. The distinction can then be thought of being between what is more conceptual and what is more perceptual. Some recent positivistic logical philosophers (e.g. Quine) have rejected the distinction between essence and nature.  But how can we Orthodox fail to distinguish humans' being unable to share God's Essence, though we can share His Nature and uncreated Energies?
The subtleties of Greek are often missed in English discussions and translations. But the Greeks were also loose with their use of the term phýsis "nature."
     Evidently, nature goes properly with energies to indicate the function of an essence. St. John of Damaskós headed one chapter (14 in Book I of his Exact exposition of Orthodox belief; I owe the reference to Dr. Gabriel) thus: "The idioms [properties] of the divine Nature." Relating properties to a nature (or person) is more self-evident than seeking to relate properties to an Essence, though this is not to be excluded. I find no harm in the usage of the Third Ecumenical Synod at Ephesos, where Christ's "unity according to hypostasis" is called "a natural [physiké] uniting [(h)énosis]." Christ's Person united the divine Essence and Nature with human essence and nature. One finds in the literature "hypostatic properties [idiómata]" as well as St. John of Damaskos's "properties of the divine Nature."

Phýsis "nature" has proved to be very lubricious in Greek theological writings. The non-Chalcedonians understood it rather like hypóstasis or próswpon "person." (Indeed, Latin substantia, meant to have the sense of ousía "essence," actually calques hypóstasis formative for formative.) Phýsis has often been carelessly but "naturally" been equated with ousía when distinguishing uncreated and created persons. If John Calvin could assume a bemeaning view of homoöúsios, we cannot; and if we cannot do that, we should not interpret phýsis in 1 Peter 1:4 more loosely than the Latins. The West can speak of unity with God's imparticipable Essence because it understands that sharing to be a virtual partaking--intentional/conceptual for the Latins; will-based (imputed or covenantal) for the Reformers. To avoid confusing the West's views with our view of unity with God's Energies, I suggest we should be careful with our use of the term Nature so as not to mislead ourselves and others.