On revisiting what Agrarian wrote, I believe he did not mean to suggest that God was divisible, although it came across as such. He is indivisible when it comes to His nature/essence (ousia), but He is definitely distinct in His Divine Personalities (Hypostases) which is a word often mistranslated into (sub-hypo, stance-stasis), substance which means "nature" or essence in Latin.
Clrearly, we know God only through His Hypostatic economy, and not in His nature. Through the Hypostases, God communicates with us and makes Himself known to us as Spirit, Word or Wisdom.
The Orthodox tendency to concentrate on the Three Hypostases is because we cannot know God except what we know of the Hyposatic revelations. Thus, we invoke the Holy Trinity knowing that worshiping God in that way will not lead to pagan Greek humanized God, that is often seen in the West.
I had thought that His Divine Nature WAS to include His Personhood. In other words, God, His nature, consists of Three Persons. Thus, when we "know" His Person, we also "know" His Essence. Of course, this knowledge can never be but mysterious
Thus, we invoke the Holy Trinity knowing that worshiping God in that way will not lead to pagan Greek humanized God, that is often seen in the West.
God is anthropomorphized in Scriptures so that we can understand the concepts of revelation given to us by Him. But seeing God as essence leads to a pagan God? I think that the Personhood of God can also lead to polytheism, don't you?
Regards
Forgive me for dropping out mid-discussion. I was out at the ranch doing the agrarian thing all week, and Mrs. Agrarian rightly reminded me that I didn't have time or energy to solve the world's theological problems *and* put in a full day's hard work every day. (Working on dial-up doesn't make for efficiency, either.)
Kosta fortunately came to my rescue and in his posts said nicely what I should have said.
I did not mean to suggest that God was divisible or has "parts." I am certainly aware of the patristic statements about God's simplicity, which I understand as applying to an after the fact contemplation of his one essence.
What I meant to emphasize was, as Kosta pointed out, Orthodoxy's traditional emphasis on the specific personal revelations through which we come to know God.
We do not begin our knowledge of God with a philosophical conception of divine simplicity, but rather with God's specific revelations of himself through his 3 persons and through granting us participation in a multiplicity of uncreated divine energies. To paraphrase other things said by the fathers, God is beyond simplicity and complexity. Simple does not mean simple to understand or unidimensional or unifaceted. It does not mean what eastern mysticism or Greek philosophy meant by simplicity, I would think. To understand what is meant by "simple," as it applies to God, I think that we must look at God's entire revelation of himself, just as we must look at God's actions of mercy in order to understand what the Christian conception of "divine justice" means -- and not look at *our* pagan-influenced ideas of "justice."
Even in the OT, when the strong emphasis was being placed on there being only one God, and before there was a specific revelation of the three hypostases of God (leaving aside the hints in the creation account and the hospitality of Abraham) -- even then, God revealed himself through a multiplicity of names, which is a curious thing if God's intention was to reveal himself as a divine simplicity in the sense that most of us tend to think of "simple."
Anyway, what I was and am trying to articulate, and am not doing very well at it (that manure on my boots is hampering me), is the Orthodox emphasis on how we know God, which, as I understand it, does not begin either with a rational contemplation of divine attributes or with a philosophical axiom of a divine simplicity -- but rather begins with personal revelation and relationships, and "ends" with direct participation in the life of the one God through the energies of God and in relationships with the three Persons.
Even our understanding of "one God" reflects this, since we see the unity of the Holy Trinity resting in the person of the Father. We see this in the Creed, which does not say "I believe in one God, a simple divine essence" and then go on to articulate beliefs about the persons. It rather begins, "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth... and in one Lord Jesus Christ."
This is straight from the NT: St. Paul writes, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
It is clear that St. Paul believes in the divinity of Christ, so why this language? It is the language of "one God" -- fully Trinitarian, but retaining a *personal* center to the Trinity. There is one God because there is one Father, one source from which the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, all equal in glory and equally worshipped.
Stripes -- you would indeed enjoy Pelikan -- Volumes 1 and 2 of his history of the development of Christian doctrine. Also, you make some good points about Palamas. It is important, indeed, to understand that St. Gregory Palamas was *not* responding directly to Latin theologians, but rather was dealing with an Italo-Greek Eastern Christian (or perhaps a school of thought within the Orthodox Church) who was heavily influenced by his understanding of scholastic theology/philosophy.
This was an internal matter for the Orthodox Church -- not a direct conflict with the West. The real question of interest to us today -- perhaps unanswerable ultimately -- is the extent to which Barlaam was reflecting the Latin theology *of his day.* Romanides seems (in my superficial analysis) to believe that he was indeed reflecting it, while Meyendorff portrays a Barlaam who was, in a sense, neither fish nor fowl. One would have expected a different reception for Palamite theology in the West had this been true, but that is another matter...
Now that I am back in the "big city", I'm going to be busy catching up on the work that has piled up in my absence, so I'll probably be out of commission for another week. But I am glancing at the interesting discussions as I have time.