Protestants, The First Moderns

The philosophical underpinnings and world view of my dear Protestants is significantly different than my Orthodox faith. This is part of the disconnect that Protestants have with Orthodox if they bother to look into it. Note the Protestants I especially refer are the Reformers, Luther and Calvin and their immense posterity of Lutheran, (Dutch) Reformed, Presbyterian, Puritans, Baptist Churches. Since the reformers there has been great variation and innovations in Protestant thought but the roots are there. So other later Protestants would share greatly in their assessments but would quibble about some side issues each in his own way. They were the first step to the modern mentality, and a large break from the Medieval.
We, Moderns, discount the existence of any spiritual reality although recounts of near death "lights at the End of the tunnel" raise some small doubt (must be loss of oxygen we can presume). To the Modern we are Homo sapien, which is simply one step away from the brutish Neanderthal. It is thought we are decidedly the Naked Ape, superior intelligence and brutish natures, creation of the struggle of the fittest. Any mystical projects of communing with God are out of the question, not withstanding the series of Hollywood "daydreams" about thoroughly skeptical scientists stumbling onto transcendent realities using advanced technologies such as Contact and The Fountain, an utterly nonsensical movie. Facts are from the observable universe; Truths with a capital T are simple social constructs. The idea that humankind can even acquire character is considered old fashioned. Oddly much of this society’s foundations arises from a Puritanical legacy: restrained, hard working, sober, decidedly unemotional, working out of lives through mundane pursuits, practically ordering our lives to abstraction while pursuing wholly terrestrial interests. See a Shakespearean play. The Bard is our window to the pre-Modern and you get a glimpse of the Medieval mentality and sensibilities: unrestrained and emotional. Monkish meditations, carried in cloister away from the world are suspect and only a tiny few choose this struggle today, which is the Orthodox revered path.
Practically speaking Protestants are sceptics; they choose not to believe as much as we in the old Ancient Faith. The existence of the spirit world is suspect, seen primarily as a demonic delusion at worst or simply the realm of charlatans. Saints and clairvoyants reports on this spirit world are discounted, although now more has become known with reports of the "Light" at the end of tunnel episodes, thus journey through it such as purgatory represents . The mystical presence of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist are symbolic not life giving to them. Saints' spiritual intercessions are superstitions as are Holy water, and veneration of relics found in the Traditions. And most fundamentally, the possibility that fallen man could have worked through God's Church, seen as corrupted, venal and a vehicle of apostasy, is impugned. The basis of the disbelief is philosophical.
And the prevailing Modern view descends further into cynicism, looking askance at everything but the lowest values, greed and base pleasures, the capitalist enterprise. If you don't believe me just consider all the advertisements that depict men being crude (usual related to alcoholic beverages) and women disrobed, seen only as objects of desire. Frequently we see movies that revel in the hero whose motives are simple self preservation and maybe some greed with few moral constraints to limit their actions but heroic nonetheless since they conclude in defeating a sinister nemesis, ala James Bond. In some ways Protestantism is a revolt against Scholastics reasoned attempts to grapple with God and the meaning of his essence and yet they retained analytical philosophical methods derived from the Scholastic tradition. Because they rejected the conclusions of the Scholastics (you know "the angels dancing on head of a needle" guys: a complete misrepresentation), God the Almighty with his Book, the received text, is the rule and basis of Morality. Let me see if I can explain this difference in the view of man, morality and God. As opposed to Orthodox God is seen as an unapproachable being of whom we can not participate in anyway. This is held by both Scholastic and Protestant, by the way with nuances of course. And further, Protestant worship God not so much as God is good but good is of God. The Scholastic would expend much effort to define the Good but since there is no Good for the Protestant but God to discover, then this is not possible; the Protestant is more apt to consider God is Great and Almighty. Under Luther and Calvin we are rightfully condemned as depraved sinners and damnation is our just reward.

God, as seen in His Revelation of the Bible, defines morality and right living. Without God and religion there is no moral framework. To the Protestant Reformer it would be nearly impossible to be moral without God, since morality comes from God and His Revelation. The Protestant Reformer sees our moral compass through God's inspired Revealed Word without recourse to spiritual insights that can be divined within the eternal moral truths. The 10 Commandments and the admonitions of the Biblical writers such as St. Paul solely guide us to the knowledge of right and wrong, guidance outside is suspect. Stealing, murder, adultery are detailed in the Holy Word as being heinous sins of which there is no doubt, but human kind, seen as depraved sinners, could not inform themselves of proper morality outside a Biblical religious framework. We shall see that there are no eternal verities either to enlighten us.
And yet the West has a great moral teacher in Socrates, contemporary of sorts with China's moral teacher, Confucius. Socrates queried whether the Good or morality comes under God's direction or rather God being Good thus his essence was moral. Of course the morality of the Greek Gods was despicable. Zeus ofttimes visited Earth in physical form, impregnating earthly woman, causing jealousy on the part of Helas, his wife. Anyone faintly familiar with Greek Mythology looks on this tales with bewilderment as to extant of their ignoble their behavior. Not wishing to equate Our God with the Greek myth, yet then again in our Bible, Wrathful, Almighty God's destruction of the Hebrew, due to the worship of the Golden Calf, in the view of the Reformer, was terrible but right and thus good because God saw to it and God does as He wills. To Socrates or Plato his writer, God was God because he was Good, the Ultimate Good, Eternal, Impassible, etc. The Scholastics would hold to the latter view, since Good was an eternal verity: God not being God unless Good. Yes, there’s a great deal to discuss but I can assure you the Orthodox are seldom going to leave it that God did what He willed, solely. Judgment is viewed much like that; we will to avoid God’s love which is damnation. In contrast Almighty God viewed by the Reformer predestines the reprobate, devoid of Grace, to damnation; fundamentally we are damned already, born into sinful depravity and its only by Grace we are saved.


The Scholastics in the tradition of Plato, Socrates and the Ancients saw mankind capable of reasoned moral choices, in part due to the inner goodness each of us contains but to the Ancient spoiled by sinful desires and choices, whose will can only be healed by Supernatural Grace (a primary contention between the Roman/Protestant even today). The Platonist viewed our inner essence, our reason and wisdom, to be the most real aspect of our being. Between the two emblematic horses of the incensive powers and appetitive urges our reason would rule to allow us to become a peace filled being in a state of apatheia, a state of absence of passion or excitement. Doing the right act with the incensive powers but not being overcome by our appetites was apatheia. This essence was immortal, indestructible and existed more really, substantially than the material world which was changeable and transient. Much like this can be said of our immortal Christian soul and so the damned souls, being immortal, are not extinguished but continue to exist in their suffering. Modern see us irredeemable either as Naked Apes or depraved sinners neither capable of this level of wisdom. Of course the Early Christian was influenced greatly by the Platonists but would vehemently reject Platonic Philosophers, mostly unstated and implied view of the human reason. To us Christians humanity can not see its way out. The Early Christian saw humanity lost in sin, a frightful morass of wrong thinking and behavior only redeemable by Jesus, Christ God through the guidance of the Faithful and Grace of the mysteries or Sacraments found within the Church. On the other hand the Modern Protestant in his transactional view of religious life needs only a "relationship" with Christ, one altar call will do, and a warm feeling on Sunday morning at the worship center. Ok, that was a slam; forgive me. I do believe the world would be better off if more people would occupy a seat at a Christian church Sunday morning, if they can't find their way into an Orthodox one. But throughout the New Testament it is told we love God by obeying his commandments or as the Orthodox would say obtaining the Virtues, which is a struggle to do. 1 John 2: 3,4 reads "....We know that we come to know [God] if we keep his commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him' and doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him". So much for a relationship! Without heartfelt repentance and confession to his Church, I wonder how close this relationship is. Of course, only God knows these things. The Orthodox has a much more favorable view of the image we hold in ourselves and much less sanguine about our current spiritual condition.
The Reformers were Nominalists all and thus moderns. Today virtually no one believes in the Universals, as did Plato and the Ancients, not to say we shouldn't mind you. Universals were meant to be the eternal forms, archetypes, upon which the visible or observable objects are created. Platonists deemed these forms eternally existent in the mind of God. It was the essential quality of the thing or animal; it was the horses horsey-ness. Thomas Aquinas, Scholastic philosopher, which the Roman Church, held to be "Gospel" for centuries posited frankly a very attractive philosophy Moderate Realism, held the Universals were eternal but since the mind could only gather and analyze information through the senses our concepts can only approximate the Universals. "He argues that it is by the knowledge of things that we come to know of God’s existence. In the natural order what God is can be known only by analogy and negation." [not my words] To Nominalists there are no Universals associated with each concept such as Goodness, or Justice. In other words to the Nominalist there's no Eternal Truths or Verities, whose existence is beyond in the Divine realm of ideas. To the Modern if I see a horse, I see an animal whose species is generally understood as Horse without any essential Horsey-ness universal to all horses. Rather to the Reformed Protestant, the Bible is the source of truth which was revealed to mankind and recorded. And there is great truth and morality contained within the Bible. But truths included in it are depicted and are not to be discovered outside it or within ourselves. Thus, the devoted can arrive at correct doctrine using rational means, derived from Scholastic academic tools but the project is different. We are not going to discover the essence of God or the truths about the image of God in ourselves. We are just to know God is God and is worthy of our worship and right again but to the Orthodox there's more to believe in. And the Moderns don't believe in a project of personal regeneration, whose true state according to the Orthodox is born in the image of God but has lost His likeness. And I'm wondering how much Thomas Aquinas in his writings thought it was possible either. In heaven there would be the Beatific vision; the eternal verities experienced directly not indirectly. I'm not prepared to begin to take on masterful Thomas Aquinas, indubitably the most influential religious philosopher next to Augustine. Where the disconnect with the Orthodox lies, among Protestant and Roman, is in the fact they, the Orthodox, rejected the Scholastics outright. The greatest Doctor of Theology in the last millennial is St. Gregory Palamas a near contemporary of Aquinas, born within 20 years of his death. In the Orthodox Church there are two feast days for him. Our Saint, raised within the Orthodox monastic community and attaining renowned holiness and sanctity responded to the criticism of Barlaam of Calabria (Southern Italy, formerly part of the Byzantine Empire for several centuries).
One of the issues in question was what happened at Mount Tabor with Jesus Christ, Moses and Elijah. This incident is described in 3 of the Gospel accounts. Little touched on in Protestant circles; I've never heard a sermon on it or devotional reading about it in all the years I was Protestant. Jesus brings three of his closest circle, James, John and Peter to the mount. Here Jesus' Divinity is displayed in glowing light; Jesus shines with Divine Light and is seen talking with old testament Saints, Moses bringer of the Law and Elijah, Prophet, so beloved carried directly up to heaven. This light is so bright the Apostles fall on their faces in awe. Moses is depicted in Genesis with a similar Light when descended Mount Sinai and his face needed to be covered as a result. What was this light? The Modern, Scholastic and Reformed Protestant would simply claim this light was created, an atmospheric phenomena to exhibit the divinity of Christ and this is what Barlaam says echoing Thomas Aquinas’ confirmation about this: our knowledge comes through the senses. We don’t discover Eternal Truths that exist as the Platonists in the Mind of God. Our as the Orthodox would say see Light by the eyes of our Heart, Nous.
Thus arises the criticism to the Modern fundamentalist who claims guidance by the Holy Spirit. Virtually every person in modern society would accept without question that knowledge arises from the observable universe, even our concepts about the world. And yet this there's this claim about the Holy Spirit. Do not get me wrong I believe in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit but I think it is manifested most within those of great Holiness and Sanctity, living in God's Grace not just every Joe and Jane. And yes, God works providentially in peoples lives but direct inspiration would seem rare to me, so opening your Bible and picking a Bible verse at random for guidance probably is not inspired by the Holy Spirit neither is a warm feeling about some decision than seems morally the right thing to do. I would need to hear an audible voice or a distinct one in my mind, it would seem, for the Holy Spirit to manifest its guidance directly. St. Paul says these spirits need to be tested, as well, for fear of being demonic origin. But I don't know too many hearing voices either; yes, it occurs but in light of the prevailing skeptical thinking, this doesn't leave much room for direct inspiration. I guess once again I've digressed on to another issue. In the current philosophical framework is guidance by the Holy Spirit believable? And we come back at least a step to Aquinas, yes but only by analogy. That is as God works providentially within our lives opening and closing "doors", since few hear few voices audible or otherwise, excepting Oral Roberts. (No disrespect to Mr. Roberts I leave these assessments to God, may he have mercy on my miserable self!) Ok, back to Barlaam and Palamas, and so to Barlaam, in agreement with the Scholastics, concludes that the light reported on Mt. Tabor is a created atmospheric phenomenon as would a Modern (this doesn't make him a Modern mind you). St. Palamas affirms the Orthodox Fathers in his assessment that the Light had Divine origins, termed the Uncreated Light. This Light, represents the fullness of the Grace of God, as we were meant from the beginning and were created to be able to participate within. Just as the Sun emits light so does the Divine essence and we were meant to take part in the divine nature, the Uncreated Light, but NOT his essence. This participation is confirmed by the Desert Fathers, Saints throughout the history of the Orthodox Church even up to day. One example is Father Arseny of the Communist Labor camps who is reported to have manifested this light and special individuals in the thousands of Orthodox Monasteries. Thus Theology is meant to be experienced within the Orthodox ascetic tradition not found in academic symposium. Admittedly, Philosophic resonances of divine light can be augured from Platonist Philosophy of Proclus. The philosophical underpinnings and world view of my dear Protestants is significantly different than my Orthodox faith. This is part of the disconnect that Protestants have with Orthodox if they bother to look into it. Note the Protestants I especially refer are the Reformers, Luther and Calvin and their immense posterity of Lutheran, (Dutch) Reformed, Presbyterian, Puritans, Baptist Churches. Since the reformers there has been great variation and innovations in Protestant thought but the roots are there. So other later Protestants would share greatly in their assessments but would quibble about some side issues each in his own way. They were the first step to the modern mentality, and a large break from the Medieval.
We, Moderns, discount the existence of any spiritual reality although recounts of near death "lights at the End of the tunnel" raise some small doubt (must be loss of oxygen we can presume). To the Modern we are Homo sapien, which is simply one step away from the brutish Neanderthal. It is thought we are decidedly the Naked Ape, superior intelligence and brutish natures, creation of the struggle of the fittest. Any mystical projects of communing with God are out of the question, not withstanding the series of Hollywood "daydreams" about thoroughly sceptical scientists stumbling onto transcendent realities using advanced technologies such as Contact and The Fountain, an utterly nonsensical movie. Facts are from the observable universe; Truths with a capital T are simple social constructs. The idea that humankind can even acquire character, is considered old fashioned. Oddly much of this society’s foundations arises from a Puritanical legacy: restrained, hard working, sober, decidedly unemotional, working out of lives through mundane pursuits, practically ordering our lives to abstraction while pursuing wholly terrestrial interests. See a Shakespearean play. The Bard is our window to the pre-Modern and you get a glimpse of the Medieval mentality and sensibilities: unrestrained and emotional. Monkish meditations, carried in cloister away from the world are suspect and only a tiny few choose this struggle today, which is the Orthodox revered path.
Practically speaking Protestants are sceptics; they choose not to believe as much as we in the old Ancient Faith. The existence of the spirit world is suspect, seen primarily as a demonic delusion at worst or simply the realm of charlatans. Saints and clairvoyants reports on this spirit world are discounted, although now more has become known with reports of the "Light" at the end of tunnel episodes, thus journey through it such as purgatory represents . The mystical presence of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist are symbolic not life giving to them. Saints' spiritual intercessions are superstitions as are Holy water, and veneration of relics found in the Traditions. And most fundamentally, the possibility that fallen man could have worked through God's Church, seen as corrupted, venal and a vehicle of apostasy, is impugned. The basis of the disbelief is philosophical.
And the prevailing Modern view descends further into cynicism, looking askance at everything but the lowest values, greed and base pleasures, the capitalist enterprise. If you don't believe me just consider all the advertisements that depict men being crude (usual related to alcoholic beverages) and women disrobed, seen only as objects of desire. Frequently we see movies that revel in the hero whose motives are simple self preservation and maybe some greed with few moral constraints to limit their actions but heroic nonetheless since they conclude in defeating a sinister nemesis, ala James Bond. In some ways Protestantism is a revolt against Scholastics reasoned attempts to grapple with God and the meaning of his essence and yet they retained analytical philosophical methods derived from the Scholastic tradition. Because they rejected the conclusions of the Scholastics (you know "the angels dancing on head of a needle" guys: a complete misrepresentation), God the Almighty with his Book, the received text, is the rule and basis of Morality. Let me see if I can explain this difference in the view of man, morality and God. As opposed to Orthodox God is seen as an unapproachable being of whom we can not participate in anyway. This is held by both Scholastic and Protestant, by the way with nuances of course. And further, Protestant worship God not so much as God is good but good is of God. The Scholastic would expend much effort to define the Good but since there is no Good for the Protestant but God to discover, then this is not possible; the Protestant is more apt to consider God is Great and Almighty. Under Luther and Calvin we are rightfully condemned as depraved sinners and damnation is our just reward.

God, as seen in His Revelation of the Bible, defines morality and right living. Without God and religion there is no moral framework. To the Protestant Reformer it would be nearly impossible to be moral without God, since morality comes from God and His Revelation. The Protestant Reformer sees our moral compass through God's inspired Revealed Word without recourse to spiritual insights that can be divined within the eternal moral truths. The 10 Commandments and the admonitions of the Biblical writers such as St. Paul solely guide us to the knowledge of right and wrong, guidance outside is suspect. Stealing, murder, adultery are detailed in the Holy Word as being heinous sins of which there is no doubt, but human kind, seen as depraved sinners, could not inform themselves of proper morality outside a Biblical religious framework. We shall see that there are no eternal verities either to enlighten us.
And yet the West has a great moral teacher in Socrates, contemporary of sorts with China's moral teacher, Confucius. Socrates queried whether the Good or morality comes under God's direction or rather God being Good thus his essence was moral. Of course the morality of the Greek Gods were despicable. Zeus ofttimes visited Earth in physical form, impregnating earthly woman, causing jealousy on the part of Helas, his wife. Anyone faintly familiar with Greek Mythology looks on this tales with bewilderment as to extant of their ignoble their behavior. Not wishing to equate Our God with the Greek myth, yet then again in our Bible, Wrathful, Amighty God's destruction of the Hebrew, due to the worship of the Golden Calf, in the view of the Reformer, was terrible but right and thus good because God saw to it and God does as He wills. To Socrates or Plato his writer, God was God because he was Good, the Ultimate Good, Eternal, Impassible, etc. The Scholastics would hold to the latter view, since Good was an eternal verity: God not being God unless Good. Yes, there’s a great deal to discuss but I can assure you the Orthodox are seldom going to leave it that God did what He willed, solely. Judgment is viewed much like that; we will to avoid God’s love which is damnation. In contrast Almighty God viewed by the Reformer predestines the reprobate, devoid of Grace, to damnation; fundamentally we are damned already, born into sinful depravity and its only by Grace we are saved.


The Scholastics in the tradition of Plato, Socrates and the Ancients saw mankind capable of reasoned moral choices, in part due to the inner goodness each of us contains but to the Ancient spoiled by sinful desires and choices, whose will can only be healed by Supernatural Grace (a primary contention between the Roman/Protestant even today). The Platonist viewed our inner essence, our reason and wisdom, to be the most real aspect of our being. Between the two emblematic horses of the incensive powers and appetitive urges our reason would rule to allow us to become a peace filled being in a state of apatheia, a state of absence of passion or excitement. Doing the right act with the incensive powers but not being overcome by our appetites was apatheia. This essence was immortal, indestructible and existed more really, substantially than the material world which was changeable and transient. Much like this can be said of our immortal Christian soul and so the damned souls, being immortal, are not extinguished but continue to exist in their suffering. Modern see us irredeemable either as Naked Apes or depraved sinners neither capable of this level of wisdom. Of course the Early Christian was influenced greatly by the Platonists but would vehemently reject Platonic Philosophers, mostly unstated and implied view of the human reason. To us Christians humanity can not see its way out. The Early Christian saw humanity lost in sin, a frightful morass of wrong thinking and behavior only redeemable by Jesus, Christ God through the guidance of the Faithful and Grace of the mysteries or Sacraments found within the Church. On the other hand the Modern Protestant in his transactional view of religious life needs only a "relationship" with Christ, one altar call will do, and a warm feeling on Sunday morning at the worship center. Ok, that was a slam forgive me. I do believe the world would be better off if more people would occupy a seat at a Christian church Sunday morning, if they can't find their way into an Orthodox one. But throughout the New Testament it is told we love God by obeying his commandments or as the Orthodox would say obtaining the Virtues, which is a struggle to do. 1 John 2: 3,4 reads "....We know that we come to know [God] if we keep his commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him' and doesn't keep his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him". So much for a relationship! Without heartful repentance and confession to his Church, I wonder how close this relationship is. Of course, only God knows these things. The Orthodox has a much more favorable view of the image we hold in ourselves and much less sanguine about our current spiritual condition.
The Reformers were Nominalists all and thus moderns. Today virtually no one believes in the Universals, as did Plato and the Ancients, not to say we shouldn't mind you. Universals were meant to be the eternal forms, archetypes, upon which the visible or observable objects are created. Platonists deemed these forms eternally existent in the mind of God. It was the essential quality of the thing or animal; it was the horses horsey-ness. Thomas Aquinas, Scholastic philosopher, which the Roman Church, held to be "Gospel" for centuries posited frankly a very attractive philosophy Moderate Realism, held the Universals were eternal but since the mind could only gather and analyse information through the senses our concepts can only approximate the Universals. "He argues that it is by the knowledge of things that we come to know of God’s existence. In the natural order what God is can be known only by analogy and negation." [not my words] To Nominalists there are no Universals associated with each concept such as Goodness, or Justice. In other words to the Nominalist there's no Eternal Truths or Verities, whose existence is beyond in the Divine realm of ideas. To the Modern if I see a horse, I see an animal whose species is generally understood as Horse without any essential Horsey-ness universal to all horses. Rather to the Reformed Protestant, the Bible is the source of truth which was revealed to mankind and recorded. And there is great truth and morality contained within the Bible. But truths included in it are depicted and are not to be discovered outside it or within ourselves. Thus, the devoted can arrive at correct doctrine using rational means, derived from Scholastic academic tools but the project is different. We are not going to discover the essence of God or the truths about the image of God in ourselves. We are just to know God is God and is worthy of our worship and right again but to the Orthodox there's more to believe in. And the Moderns don't believe in a project of personal regeneration, whose true state according to the Orthodox is born in the image of God but has lost His likeness. And I'm wondering how much Thomas Aquinas in his writings thought it was possible either. In heaven there would be the Beatific vision; the eternal verities experienced directly not indirectly. I'm not prepared to begin to take on masterful Thomas Aquinas, indubitably the most influential religious philosopher next to Augustine. Where the disconnect with the Orthodox lies, among Protestant and Roman, is in the fact they, the Orthodox, rejected the Scholastics outright. The greatest Doctor of Theology in the last millennial is St. Gregory Palamas a near contemporary of Aquinas, born within 20 years of his death. In the Orthodox Church there are two feast days for him. Our Saint, raised within the Orthodox monastic community and attaining renowned holiness and sanctity responded to the criticism of Barlaam of Calabria (Southern Italy, formerly part of the Byzantine Empire for several centuries).
One of the issues in question was what happened at Mount Tabor with Jesus Christ, Moses and Elijah. This incident is described in 3 of the Gospel accounts. Little touched on in Protestant circles; I've never heard a sermon on it or devotional reading about it in all the years I was Protestant. Jesus brings three of his closest circle, James, John and Peter to the mount. Here Jesus' Divinity is displayed in glowing light; Jesus shines with Divine Light and is seen talking with old testament Saints, Moses bringer of the Law and Elijah, Prophet, so beloved carried directly up to heaven. This light is so bright the Apostles fall on their faces in awe. Moses is depicted in Genesis with a similar Light when descended Mount Sinai and his face needed to be covered as a result. What was this light? The Modern, Scholastic and Reformed Protestant would simply claim this light was created, an atmospheric phenomena to exhibit the divinity of Christ and this is what Barlaam says echoing Thomas Aquinas’ confirmation about this: our knowledge comes through the senses. We don’t discover Eternal Truths that exist as the Platonists in the Mind of God. Our as the Orthodox would say see Light by the eyes of our Heart, Nous.
Thus arises the criticism of the Modern fundamentalist who claims guidance by the Holy Spirit. Virtually every person in modern society would accept without question that knowledge arises from the observable universe, even our concepts about the world. And yet this there's this claim about the Holy Spirit. Do not get me wrong I believe in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit but I think it is manifested most within those of great Holiness and Sanctity, living in God's Grace not just every Joe and Jane. And yes, God works providentially in peoples lives but direct inspiration would seem rare to me, so opening your Bible and picking a Bible verse at random for guidance probably is not inspired by the Holy Spirit neither is a warm feeling about some decision than seems morally the right thing to do. I would need to hear an audible voice or a distinct one in my mind, it would seem, for the Holy Spirit to manifest its guidance directly. St. Paul says these spirits need to be tested, as well, for fear of being demonic origin. But I don't know too many hearing voices either; yes, it occurs but in light of the prevailing sceptical thinking, this doesn't leave much room for direct inspiration. I guess once again I've digressed on to another issue. In the current philosophical framework is guidance by the Holy Spirit believable? And we come back at least a step to Aquinas, yes but only by analogy. That is as God works providentially within our lives opening and closing "doors", since few hear few voices audible or otherwise, excepting Oral Roberts. (No disrespect to Mr. Roberts I leave these assessments to God, may he have mercy on my miserable self!) Ok, back to Barlaam and Palamas, and so to Barlaam, in agreement with the Scholastics, concludes that the light reported on Mt. Tabor is a created atmospheric phenomenon as would a Modern (this doesn't make him a Modern mind you). St. Palamas affirms the Orthodox Fathers in his assessment that the Light had Divine origins, termed the Uncreated Light. This Light, represents the fullness of the Grace of God, as we were meant from the beginning and were created to be able to participate within. Just as the Sun emits light so does the Divine essence and we were meant to take part in the divine nature, the Uncreated Light, but NOT his essence. This participation is confirmed by the Desert Fathers, Saints throughout the history of the Orthodox Church even up to day. One example is Father Arseny of the Communist Labor camps who is reported to have manifested this light and special individuals in the thousands of Orthodox Monasteries. Thus Theology is meant to be experienced within the Orthodox ascetic tradition not found in academic symposium. Admittedly, Philosophic ressonances of divine light can be augured from Platonist Philosophy of Proclus.