I might have been wrong on Edwards and Free will

I am a big fan of Richard Muller and accept his criticism of Jonathan Edwards.  I now see where I might be wrong.

Did he commit the modal fallacy?

John of Damascus: Prolegomena

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.

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.

(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?

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?

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").