"However, I continue to think these are differences of views (Aristotle vs. Plato), not necessarily a "right" vs. "wrong"."
NO, NO, NO! :-) Orthodox theology is not Platonic or Neoplatonic, and as long as you continue to think that this is true (I don't blame you -- this has been the superficial analysis of Eastern theology by the West for centuries), JK, you are going to continue to say things like "... and not a distinct Energeia and Ousia. This seems to imply a demiurge."
There is *no* separation between the energia of God and the one ousia of God and the one nature of God and the thee hypostases/persons in which we know God. Again, you cannot separate out the ousia or nature or energia or hypostases and say that one is God and another is not.
In fact your statement that "God is simple" is perhaps the most Platonic statement of all that one can make. If there is one thing that Orthodoxy does *not* believe, it is that God is simple, or that He can be boiled down to a divine simplicity. That is Platonism -- that is "the One." The very fact that we start with the three Persons of the Trinity in all knowledge of God, and that we participate in his life in a multiplicity of His energies should demonstrate that God is not simple. Only by after the fact reflections on the fact that there is a single essence/ousia and a single divine nature does any kind of "simplicity" arise.
Now there *is* a Father who does teach a divine simplicity at the center of the Holy Trinity, and that is St. Augustine, and it is because of his Neoplatonic influences when it comes to his Trinitarian theology.
I am not saying that Orthodoxy is "Platonic", but it is based on Greek philosophical assumptions, first and foremost, that God is so transcendant, that He cannot be known accept through intermediaries. While also a Western thought, nonetheless, we receive this concept from Plato and Greek philosophy. To deny this is to not be aware of the background from which the Church Fathers operated from.
There is *no* separation between the energia of God and the one ousia of God and the one nature of God and the thee hypostases/persons in which we know God. Again, you cannot separate out the ousia or nature or energia or hypostases and say that one is God and another is not.
IF this is true, then HOW does God's transcendance remain intact through the mediation of "energy" IF energy is ALSO God???!!! IF God is simple and does not consist of parts, then God's essence and energy are intertwined without separation. BUT - when God comes to man, "sending His Energy", is His Essence present as well? If it is, what is the point of the distinction between Energy and Essence, since both are present? Again, I don't find these distinctions in Scriptures or the Church Fathers.
you cannot separate out the ousia or nature or energia or hypostases and say that one is God and another is not.
I can't? Then what's the purpose of "energy"? So why is it necessary to even discuss "energy" as necessary to become an intermediary between God and man? IF energy is equally God, then why cannot God's essence contact man? According to the explanation of WHY energy is crucial in Palamatic understanding, man cannot contact God directly. Is Energy God? Then God and man are in contact! To me, this is a case of "wanting it both ways".
In fact your statement that "God is simple" is perhaps the most Platonic statement of all that one can make.
This is the basic difference between the East and West on this subject, as I see it. The West considers God as One, His Nature first, and His Personhood subsequently. It is the other way around in the East. To say that "God is one is a Platonic concept" is a lack of knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, where God is one - AND the Platonic concept that there are different levels of dieties, intermediaries known as demiurges, who allow the Transcendant God to communicate anything to man.
The very fact that we start with the three Persons of the Trinity in all knowledge of God, and that we participate in his life in a multiplicity of His energies should demonstrate that God is not simple.
LOL! Because YOU start from Persons, it must be right??? It is presumed that whenever God the Son is active within a soul, His Spirit and the Father are there as well. The Son can do nothing without the Father and the Spirit also present. This mistaken separation of the "jobs" of God leads to polytheism. The difference between the persons is in relationship ONLY. They don't have different roles, where God the Father remains in heaven while He sends His Son or Spirit. I hope this is not what you are trying to say.
Only by after the fact reflections on the fact that there is a single essence/ousia and a single divine nature does any kind of "simplicity" arise.
As I said earlier, the West has ALWAYS started from "God is One" first. Starting especially with Tertullian. The Scriptures teach us without doubt that God is One first. It is only later, after contemplating the revelation of Christ and the OT in the light of Jesus Christ that we even KNOW that God is Threee Persons, different ONLY in relationship to each other. While there is a school of thought in Hellenistic Judaism that personifies Wisdom, it is not clear from the very few verses that this Wisdom IS of the Essence of God Himself - just that this Wisdom was present with God during Creation. In the end, God is One first. The idea of "Personhood" comes strictly from revelation coming much later, not from human thought. Man sees God as One first.
Now there *is* a Father who does teach a divine simplicity at the center of the Holy Trinity, and that is St. Augustine, and it is because of his Neoplatonic influences when it comes to his Trinitarian theology.
"God is One" was taught by EVERY Western Father who discussed the Trinity BEFORE St. Augustine! Who are you trying to kid?
Regards
Agrarian, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say, but St. John of Damascus (An Exact Exposition of Orthodox Faith, Book I, numerous references) and other Fathers make it clear that Orthodoxy always taught that God was indeed simple, uncompound, and indivisible.