Encourse Wiki

Dogmatic Theology — Topic 2

Properties3
tagstopic
courseDogmatic Theology
unitTopic 2

14 min read

Dogmatic Theology — Topic 2

Apophatic and cataphatic theology

Concerning specifically then our knowledge of God recorded in the Church’s Tradition there are two approaches: 1) apophatic and 2) cataphatic theology. The first approach attempts to come closer to an understanding of God through establishing everything that He is not (i.e. through negation: indivisible, uncreated, limitless). The latter approach is affirmative, stating those attributes of God which we know of (i.e. all-loving, merciful, just).

In the spiritual life apophatic theology serves as the path of ascent to God through consistent rejection by the ascetic of all the properties and qualities inherent of created nature. In other words, a person must first remove from his mind the concept of ​​anything created, not only of physical world, but even of the angelic and spiritual worlds, so that he may rise above this to a true understanding of God. However, God is not just an impersonal entity to be attained, as some non-Christian mystics thought, but He is also a Person. He reveals Himself to man in His actions or energies. This path of knowing God through His actions and uncreated energies is the cataphatic path of knowing God.

The Fathers express themselves only indirectly concerning the Nature of the Divinity, saying that the Essence of God is “one, simple, incomplex.” While speaking of the attributes of God, the Holy Fathers indicate that their seeming multiplicity is a result of our own inability to find a mystical and single means of viewing the Divinity. The divinely inspired Holy Scriptures are the source for many of the names we use to speak about God, such as, goodness, love, wisdom, life, truth, etc.

Historical development of doctrine of knowledge of God: The Eunomian Heresy

Historically we may point to two periods of development in the theology of “knowledge of God.” First, in the 4th century during the Trinitarian disputes with regards to the Eunomian heresy; later in the 14th century in connection with the Palamite controversy.

During the Trinitarian disputes a very fundamental and important question for Theology was specified: to what degree is knowledge of God or knowing God possible?

Aetius, Eunomius’ teacher, was an extreme Arian, denying not only the consubstantiality of the Father and Son but also their likeness one to another. Thus they fully denied the Divinity of Christ. Aetius himself sat for hours trying to work out a definition of God by means of geometric figures. Dogmatics turned into a game, dialectics of ideas. Eventually Aetius began to claim that he knew God better than God knew Himself.

Eunomius considered that man’s true purpose in life and the only content of faith was contained in the knowledge of God; however, like his teacher, this was purely theoretical knowledge. Eunomius’ teaching received the title “the theory of names.” This was because he claimed that the essence of a thing was contained in its “ontological” name. Eunomius stated that all of man’s conceptions can be divided into two categories. The first are concepts that are designated by people, or concepts “by design.” From the point of view of Eunomius, these concepts only conditionally specify a thing. In essence they are simply diminutives of things that do not say anything about the nature of the object and do not contain any objective knowledge. In the second category are substance or ontological names which represent the very essence of things and, being inseparably connected with those things, are more or less its energy. These names give us objective knowledge of the world. In other words, the theory of names presupposes an original God-established agreement between the world of things and the structure of the human intelligent mind.

The names of God according to Eunomius, being the expression of His essence, are given by God to Himself. These names are revealed to man by God Himself: whoever knows the true name of God knows His essence. Thus, the essence of God is comprehensible to man. As Eunomius says, “God knows no more about His essence than we do; it cannot be said that it is known to Him more, and to us less.”

Repeating his teacher Aetius, Eunomius states that the name which is applicable only to God and not to creation is the name “unborn”, “uncreated” (ἀγέννητος). This word most completely expresses the Divine essence. Since the Son is born the word γεννήτος expresses His essence, and therefore the Son is not of equal-essence with the Father, because their essences are characterized by opposite names.

  • On Knowledge of God
    • Ways of knowing God: natural, Holy Scripture and supernatural
    • Historical development of doctrine of knowledge of God: The Eunomian Heresy
    • Polemics against Eunomius’ teaching
    • The Hesychast Controversy: the teaching of Barlaam of Calabria
    • Polemics of St. Gregory Palamas against Barlaam
    • Apophatic and cataphatic theology

Polemics against Eunomius’ teaching

In contrast to Eunomius, the Holy Fathers argued that God creates by His omnipotent will and, therefore has no need, as man does, of any audible words. The naming of objects as the combinations of sounds is a product of reason and has an accidental nature. According to the teaching of St. Basil the Great, proper names, be they the names of God or the names of creatures, in no way denote or describe the essence of objects but only indicate basic properties of those objects. The nature of an object is not determined by its name, whereas the names of objects owe their existence to the objects themselves. The objects themselves are more important than their names and reality is more important than words.

According to Eunomius knowing is a passive process, which occurs exclusively by establishing a correspondence between the eternal names-concepts, which are supposedly implanted initially in the human soul, and the object in question. Moreover, Eunomius’ teachings completely ignore experience. He says nothing about the fact that all knowledge presupposes personal experience; this is even truer with regards to the knowledge of God. On the one hand our experience can be meaningful for us only if it is rationally expressed through conceptual ideas; however, on the other hand these ideas themselves presuppose experience and are possible only through experience and in experience.

Each of the names of God characterizes one or another property of God; not the essence of God, but this or that property of the essence. In light of this St. Gregory of Nyssa saw Eunomius’ attempts to rationally define God’s essence as a type of intellectual idol worship. He states rather that, “that which is invisible by nature becomes visible in actions seen in things that are near Him.”

One of the most important achievements of St. Gregory of Nyssa is the development of his doctrine of the mystical knowledge of God. He speaks of three stages of knowledge of God. The first stage is the stage of purification and detachment of the soul from vices, passions and worldly delusions, as well as enlightening it with the light of truth. The second stage is the stage of the ascent of the soul through the visible to the invisible, intelligible and hidden. And only after this comes the third stage: the direct closest union of the soul with God, communion with Him, contemplation of Him in ecstasy and detachment from everything comprehensible.

Polemics of St. Gregory Palamas against Barlaam

St. Gregory Palamas founds his polemics with Barlaam on the understanding that God cannot be identified with the philosophical concept of “substance/essence” (οὐσία). In defense of this St. Gregory references Exodus (3:14), where God reveals Himself to Moses saying I AM THAT I AM(heb. – אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה; gr. – Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν; slav. – а҆́зъ є҆́смь сы́й), not as “I am essence.”[1] This state of “being” St. Gregory claims is more than just “essence;” it is to whom “essence” belongs.

Further, Saint Gregory substantiates the eternity of divine energies. If God acquired “energy” in time, for example, after (or at the moment of) the creation of the world, then we should conclude that up to that moment God was imperfect, incomplete; this contradicts the basic premises of Christian theology and the doctrine of God as an absolute perfect being. St. Gregory to support his claims naturally references the Holy Scripture, in particular 2 Peter 1:4, where Apostle Peter states that we must become partakers of the divine nature.[2] In the East, these words have always been used as a biblical justification for the possibility of true theosis, i.e. a real joining of man with God.

In the Holy Scriptures there are two groups of seemingly contradictory statements: the first speaks of the unknowability of God; the second speaks of the possibility of knowing Him. St. Gregory solved this seeming contradiction by explaining that all the places in Scripture that speak of God’s unknowability must be seen in light of His essence, while those that speak of the possibility of knowing Him relate to His divine uncreated energies.

Thus, we see that St. Gregory’s polemics against Barlaam was not theoretical in its character, but purely practical. Saint Gregory above all was trying to defend not only his own spiritual experience or that of his Athonite brothers, but the experience that permeates the entire ascetic tradition of the Eastern Church. The teaching of St. Gregory Palamas speaks of the incomprehensibility of the Divine essence, but of the comprehensibility of God in His uncreated energies, and through them of deification.

[1] Οὐκ εἶπεν «ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ οὐσία», ἀλλ’ «ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν». (The Triads, 3rd Triad, part 2, ch. 12 // pp. 668-69, lines 20-21)

[2] Γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως.

The Hesychast Controversy: the teaching of Barlaam of Calabria

In the 14th century the dispute regarding the limits and character of our knowledge of God once again arose, most notably between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria. Like the majority of western theologians of the time Barlaam was greatly influenced by blessed Augustine, the first theologian declining to separate the essence and the energy of God. He considered that this contradicted the teaching of the simplicity, unity and wholeness of the Divine essence. Barlaam therefore came to the conclusion that the Divine essence is incommunicable and completely unknowable. In this he agreed with the Eastern Fathers, but at the same time, since he denied the distinction between essence and energy, he argued that the “energies” of the Divine are simply created divine powers. They are necessary because man cannot have any experience of God without them.

Much of this controversy was connected with the account of the Transfiguration of Christ, specifically with the (uncreated) light on Tabor that the apostles saw. According to Barlaam this light was nothing more than an atmospheric phenomenon. He considered all “(τὰ) θεοφάνια” (i.e. Divine appearances) which are described in the Holy Scriptures merely as created symbols, created in order to communicate with man. Barlaam’s teaching presupposes the following: genuine communion with God is impossible for man; theosis cannot be the goal of man’s life; knowledge of God is only possible through created things. Thus, Barlaam, in many respects like Eunomius, denied the significance of experience in the matter of knowledge of God; for him, theology is a kind of theoretical reasoning based on divinely revealed principles drawn from Holy Scripture.

This dispute may be seen as the culmination of the Eunomian heresy. In the 4th century the Church established the teaching of God’s incomprehensibility in His essence, and the possibility of knowing Him in His energies. Nonetheless, the Holy Fathers did not elaborate on what exactly these energies were. The focus of the Eunomian heresy was on God’s essence, while the Hesychast controversy deals with expounding upon what these energies are and their relation to man.

Ways of knowing God: natural, Holy Scripture and supernatural

It must be established, that God is known by man only inasmuch as God reveals Himself to him. Nevertheless God is “everywhere present and fillest all things,” and thus is discernable in creation. The Holy Scriptures often speak about this. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork (Ps. 19:1; also consider Ps. 104). Apostle Paul directly expresses this when rebuking pagans for their disbelief in a single almighty God:_that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen,being understood by the things that are made , even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse _(Rom. 1:19-20). St. John Damascene writes, “the knowledge of God’s existence has been reavealed to us through nature…the very harmony of creation, its preservation and governing, teach us that there is a God who has put all this together and keeps it together, ever maintaining it and providing for it.”[1]

However one may come to knowledge of the existence of God not only by studying nature, but also by searching inside oneself, through knowledge of the self. This method of knowing God through self-knowledge is based upon the fact that man is created in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26-27). St. Anastasios of Sinai writes, “if you desire to know God, above all know thyself, from the arrangement of thy being, from the union of thy being, from that which is inside thyself. Become immersed in thyself and, as in a mirror, look into thy soul, discern its arrangement and see thyself as being in the image and likeness of God.”[2] St. Basil the Great in his commentary on the words “attend to thyself” (Deut. 15:9) states that, “if you attend to thyself, it will be unnecessary for thee to search for the traces of the Creator in the structure of the universe, but in thy very self, as if in a small world, you will perceive the great wisdom of thy Creator.”[3]

However, knowledge of God through nature and natural revelation are but an elementary and very limited method of knowing God. Such knowledge of God gives only the most general and vague notions about God as the Creator and Provider of the universe. Furthermore, following the Fall, man’s relationship with the world was corrupted. He often does not behold the beauty and harmony in the world because his abilities to know creation as God created it have been weakened and darkened.

The next form of knowledge of God is through (study of) the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Holy Fathers. This form of knowledge of God occupies a certain intermediate position between natural knowledge (i.e. through nature) and supernatural knowledge (i.e. experience of God). The Scriptures of course, as divinely inspired, are supernatural in their nature as the Word of God; however, being that man receives and comprehends Scripture by means of his senses and the capabilities of his intellect, the knowledge obtained through its study, and the study of the commentaries of the Holy Fathers, remains “natural” and limited. Once again, this is knowledge about God – not knowing God Himself.

![](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.34833673c9213a4fc96ea3cffe98c3b0?rik=7iIwGc25YXFaEQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.copticorthodoxmission.uk%2fwp- content%2fuploads%2f2015%2f09%2f2CI- CZ2-O03-U.jpg&ehk=6eRQtG31j3J0U4eVCceaTqOzlNFHNazo6JPXLzZFIho%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)The only true knowledge of God is “supernatural” knowledge of God. It is only given through direct revelation to each person individually by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. All the truths of the Christian faiths in Holy Scripture and Church Tradition are dimly revealed. They are comprehended in their fullness only in experience of the Divine. Such pure knowledge and experience of God Himself can only be attained through the gift of grace. In fact, the Holy Fathers warn against attempting to reach such heights prematurely, because one may easily give into the temptation of pride.

[1] [St. John Damascene. The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Ch. 3. (P. 168, 169).](https://archive.org/details/saint-john-of-damascus- writings/page/n11/mode/2up)

[2] Quoted from Russian. _Преп. _Анастасий Синайский. Первое слово об устроении человека по образу и подобию Божиему, 2 ([электронный ресурс](https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Anastasij_Sinait/tri-slova-ob-ustroenii- cheloveka-po-obrazu-i-po-podobiju-bozhiemu/)).

[3] Quoted from Russian. Свт. Василий Великий. Беседа 3 На слова: «Внемли себе» (Втор. 15:9) (электронный ресурс).

On Knowledge of God

Graph View

Backlinks