Refuting the Papist Reading of St. Basil’s Letter 234

In this article I'll be covering the papist interpretation of St. Basil's Letter 234.

Introduction:

---

Discord: discord.gg/ortho
Twitter: Apophatic_

Roman Catholic apologists (from now on referred to as "Papists") try to interpret St. Basil the Great's Letter 234 as a distinction merely between God's essence and created operations, as if Basil were discussing effects in creation rather than the divine, uncreated energies of God Himself. In particular, they tend to turn to the third paragraph, where Basil describes Christ's work in creation and miracles, as evidence that the "energies" Basil refers to are only created effects i.e. operations.

But we do not notice that this interpretation fails to consider the broader theological context in which St. Basil is operating, and I hope to demonstrate later in this article.

Before presenting my refutation from Contra Eunomius, let us first examine St. Basil’s Letter 234.

Examination:

---

Basil begins to pose a rhetorical trap scenario to his enemies: "Do you worship what you know or what you do not know?" He shows how his enemies turn the question into a weapon: if you say "I know," they demand an explanation of the divine essence; if you admit ignorance regarding the essence, they charge you with worshipping a God you don't even know. Basil dismantles the snare by saying that "to know" is multivalent and analogical: we do know God by His manifest operations/attributes. power, wisdom, goodness, providence but not His essence.

He draws an absolute conceptual line: "The operations are various, and the essence simple… we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence." This is the theological center of gravity. Having established the distinction, Basil forestalls the counter objection: "If you are ignorant of the essence, you are ignorant of God Himself." He does a volte face: anyone who claims to know the divine essence is actually crazy. In a rich "mad dog" metaphor, he warns against misleading claims to vision. He then bases the correct method of access to God: faith in the existence and saving work of God, not knowledge of essence.

Gnosis of God involves the recognition of His unknowability a apophatic trope. Basil concludes the argument with Biblical illustrations and Christological mediation. "No one has seen God at any time… the Only-begotten declared Him." What was declared? Not the ineffable being, but the divine power and saving action revealed through history. Abraham worshipped when he believed; the disciples worshipped when they saw wind and sea obey Christ. So: knowledge derives from operations divine; worship derives from that knowledge; faith and knowledge support each other. This biblical and pastoral conclusion leads back to the beginning question and illustrates why the trap is unsuccessful.

Refutation:

---

Roman Catholic apologists have the habit of citing paragraph 3 of St. Basil's Letter 234 to argue that when Basil uses the term energeia (ἐνέργεια), he is thinking only of works that take rise and close in time in other words, created effects and not the uncreated, eternal energies of God. They indicate Basil's reference to Christ calming the storm and commanding the winds as evidence that Basil is only discussing temporal deeds that are evident in creation. The basis for this interpretation is that since the occurrence (stillness of the sea) is a temporal deed, then the energeia to which Basil refers must also be temporal and created.

This passage is typically used as a proof-text to state that the dichotomy of essence and energies in Eastern Orthodoxy is an innovation, since Basil allegedly equates all of the divine "operations" with extrinsic, temporal events and not with God's eternal, uncreated action. On this reading, when Basil states that "knowledge came from the operations, and the worship from the knowledge," the "operations" are merely finite events which reveal God's essence indirectly.

Fair enough, perhaps we must concede that the Greek Fathers' usage of energeia does have a wide semantic range. We can indeed attribute it to works beginning and terminating in time, miracles or creative activities, but it can also be used to describe the uncreated, eternal essential attributes of God, such as His providence, grace, power, wisdom, and divine illumination. The sense of energeia is not fixed or consistent but one that varies according to the use made of it.

Thus, when Basil mentions Christ calming the winds, he is not equating the divine power with the material cause (the cessation of the storm). Instead, the miracle is the manifestation of Christ's divine action and power. The created effect is the result, but the energy itself the divine power bringing it about is uncreated. To equate the external effect with the divine action which causes it is to completely miss Basil's point.

In order to properly interpret Letter 234, we must read it together with St. Basil's Contra Eunomius, particularly Book II, where Basil provides a clear and more detailed explanation of how we come to know about God. In Book II, Basil categorically states that we know God not by His essence which is totally transcendent and incomprehensible but by the created manifestation of His energeiai (activities). These divine energies are known by created effects within creation but not the essence.

”First of all, how is it possible to reason back from created works to substance? This is something which I for my part fail to see. For created things manifest power, wisdom, and skill, but not of the substance itself.”

Contra Eunomius Book II - St. Basil the Great

In fact St. Gregory Palamas in his 150 Chapters provides this quotation as a refutation of Barlaam and Akydinos.

In Chapter 83 he states “Basil the Great says in reply to Eunomius who was claiming to disclose the substance of God on the basis of creatures. Therefore, the energy of God manifest from created things is uncreated and not the substance. And the followers of Barlaam and Akindynos who say the divine energy is not distinct from the divine substance are clearly Eunomians.”

The refutation is simple if the energies enumerated by St. Basil the Great such as power and wisdom are equated with the created effects as the papists claim in order to try and claim that St. Basil is not making the essence-energies distinction. Then how can we know the wisdom through created effects if wisdom itself is a created effect? It makes no sense.

The refutation is really quite simple: If the energies St. Basil the Great enumerates power, wisdom, goodness, and providence are labeled as nothing more than created effects, as the Papists do so as to eliminate that Basil is making an essence–energies distinction, then their interpretation descends into absurdity. If wisdom itself is a created operation in Letter 234 then how do we know wisdom from a created operation according to Contra Eunomius Book II. This interpretation just doesn’t work.

Wisdom, power, and goodness are not creations of man but eternal perfection of God Himself. These are God's works and qualities that manifest in the world but which cannot be depleted by terrestrial occurrences. If we look at the chain of creation or Christ's miracles, we do not conclude that "power" or "wisdom" are created; rather, we see that these created effects point us back to God's uncreated energy.

Through God’s created manifestations i.e. effects we know the energies but not the essence.

You can read my other article specifically on Actus Purus in light of St. Gregory Palamas here for why I believe that Palamas taught created effects. You can also read Dr. Tikhon Pino’s book on essence and energies.

Here is my Actus Purus article here: