Search Results

This chapter examines the spiritual dialectic of purification and illumination, or praxis and theoria, within which Christians come to know God. In turn, it addresses Gregory's response to the Eunomians; the theological example of Moses; Gregory's missionary approach to Greek culture; his pioneering style of moderate Christian monasticism or “philosophy,” defined as a middle path between solitude and public service; his use of Plato and Plotinus compared to the Bible; the respective roles of the human body and soul in purification; the transcendence and incomprehensibility of God; God's grace; the central place of Christian baptism; the question of Gregory's apophaticism; the positive knowledge of the divine light; the relationship between faith and reason; and the basis of Christian theology in the divine economy of salvation

This chapter deals with a reading of Gregory's apophaticism which is particularly focused on his philosophy of language. In his interpretation, Scot Douglass builds on the work of patristic scholars such as Mariette Can évet, Ekkehard Mühlenberg, and Alden Mosshammer; he brings to his analysis, however, a profound interest in post-Heideggerian philosophy and his approach assumes that Gregory still has profound and interesting things to say about the nature and purpose of theology. The chapter first outlines Douglass's account of Gregory's philosophy language. It then indicates how Douglass makes connections between this and the rest of Gregory's theology, in particular Gregory's notions of divine presence through revelation and incarnation; the specific nature of theological discourse and the nature of the soul's encounter with that of which it cannot speak. It then comments on the connections that Douglass draws between Gregory's theology and Heidegger, Derrida, and Marion and the conclusions he subsequently draws about the nature of theology as the Cappadocians saw it.

The Introduction defines divine simplicity and theological epistemology. The latter is distinguished from religious epistemology, which asks, ‘On what grounds is someone's holding a certain belief justified?’ Theological epistemology starts from beliefs about God held by religious people and asks, ‘In what sense does the believer attribute these to God?’ The doctrine of divine simplicity, according to which God's unity precludes a diversity of parts or attributes, raises problems for theological epistemology. Divine simplicity forces theologians to explain how divine attributes are predicated of God without introducing composition, complexity, or, most importantly, contradiction into God. In referring the various scriptural portrayals of God to a simple entity, early Christians attempted to explain how these can be coherent and consistent. Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa are unique in their approach to these ideas. They steer a median course between the identity thesis, according to which God's attributes are identical with God, and radical apophaticism, which says that no attribute can properly be ascribed to God. Basil and Gregory view divine attributes as propria, unique identifying characteristics inherent in the divine nature, but not identical with its essence. Attention is given to Christopher Stead's interpretation of Basil and Gregory.

Chapter 2 engages the theological epistemology of Clement of Alexandria. It argues that Clement portrays Christian faith along the lines of what Aristotle called ‘science’ (epistêmê), though he also draws on Epicurean and Stoic epistemology. Like Aristotelian science, faith rests upon infallible first principles. For Clement, these are the scriptures and the Logos or Christ. But beyond these principles lies the Father, whom Clement argues is utterly ineffable. Clement espouses a radical apophaticism—the idea that no name can properly be given to God. In this, he draws upon Middle Platonist commentaries on Plato's Parmenides. A final section discusses Origen, who, like Clement, distinguishes between a simple Father and a complex Son. Of particular interest is Origen's doctrine of conceptualization (epinoia), the idea that the titles of Christ in scripture provide various ways of looking at his complex being. Attention is given to the question of whether Origen held the identity thesis when discussing the attributes of the simple Father. Origen's influence on both the Cappadocians and their opponent Eunomius is suggested. To the former, Origen bequeathed the idea of conceptualization, though they will maintain the Son's simplicity.

Sarah Coakley outlines the recent debate that analytic philosophers of religion have conducted in defence of the so‐called ‘social’ doctrine of the Trinity. Since appeal is characteristically made by them to Gregory of Nyssa, and especially to his Ad Ablabium, she focuses on Gregory, and expounds what he says in the Ad Ablabium in the light of his other — somewhat fragmented — expositions of the three‐fold unity of the Godhead. Coakley holds it crucial for an expanding of the discussion to allow for the trinitarian insights that Gregory affords when not explicitly discussing the (supposedly) technical meanings of hypostasis or prosopon, but describing more loosely the soul's engagement with the Trinity at the ‘economic’ level of operation (as, for instance, in his Commentary on the Song of Songs). The notion of hypostasis (‘person’) that emerges from this analysis is far less tidy than the contemporary analytic discussions have supposed; and further, a covert smuggling of ‘modern’ notions of the ‘individual’ can be detected in some authors who purport to defend Gregory, resulting in a misleading account of Gregory's perception of intra‐divine relations. Finally, Coakley considers the implications of Gregory's profound apophaticism for the assessment of the status of his trinitarian language on the literal/analogical/metaphorical spectrum, as well as for the issues of gender, which interestingly intrude into Gregory's vision of incorporation into the divine life.

This chapter uses the dialectical understanding of Śhaṅkara developed in the previous chapter to challenge the conventional understanding of Śhaṅkara's doctrine of the world as one of “illusionism.” This chapter argues that Śhaṅkara's declaration of the unreality of the phenomenal world can be understood as a transformative commentary on an earlier, realist form of Vedanta that subverts, but does not efface, the latter's realist cosmology. Reading Eckhart through the lens of Śhaṅkara's commentary on the Brahma-sutra allows one to see the former's apophaticism similarly as a transformative commentary on the orthodox Christian model of creation.

Symeon the New Theologian's three ‘Theological Discourses’ and ‘Hymn 21’ are entirely devoted to the polemic on triadological matters. What was the underlying reason for this polemic? The answer to this question, which has not yet been satisfactorily investigated by scholars, will reveal more about the place of Symeon in the history of Orthodox theology. In the discourses, the main subject of discussion is Jesus Christ's words ‘My Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28), whereas in the hymn it is the ‘intellectual or actual’ distinction between the Father and Son. The unknown opponent in the discourses is accused by Symeon of subordinationism and hidden Arianism, whereas Stephen is criticized in the hymn mainly for his attempt to explain the distinction between the Father and the Son in a rational way. Symeon's trinitaritarism might be characterized as both highly traditional and somewhat synthetic: his theology is a combination of the heritage of the triadological polemic of the preceding centuries with a strong apophaticism taken from Dionysius and a monastic resistance to the discussion of theological matters.

Ascetical and mystical themes predominate in the literary heritage of Symeon the New Theologian, but he also discusses many theological themes. This chapter points out the most indicative items of similarity between Symeon's teaching about God and that of preceding Fathers, with the goal of defining his place among Eastern Christian theologians. Symeon quoted Gregory Nazianzen much more often than any other church writer. For Symeon, as for Orthodox tradition in general, Gregory was ‘the theologian’ in the proper sense, true Christian theology personified. By assigning the name of ‘New Theologian’ to Symeon, Orthodox tradition suggested the continuity of theological approach between him and Gregory Nazianzen. Symeon's indebtedness to Gregory is particularly clear in his teaching on God within Himself and in His revelation to humankind, which, for all its vividness, might well be expounded as based on Gregory's theological doctrine, and, through the latter, on Orthodox tradition. This chapter also looks at the views of Gregory and Symeon with regards to divine names, the incomprehensibility of God, and apophaticism.

This chapter examines the concepts of apophasis and askesis in mystical theology and contemporary philosophy. It provides some explanation for the revival of interest in research and discussion on apophaticism in certain segments of contemporary philosophy. It emphasizes the link between apophasis and askesis and explores the consequences of failing to acknowledge this link and the epistemological, hermeneutical, and ethical implications of such an acknowledgement.

Chapter 5 deals with the doctrine of divine excellency, an important constituent of Edwardsian theology proper. Edwards argues that “one alone cannot be excellent.” He maintains that an entity that is without any internal differentiation whatsoever is not as “excellent” and therefore, not as beautiful, as one that does. Building on a careful argument for the conclusion that beauty requires such plurality, Edwards ends up with something approaching an a priori argument for the Trinity via a doctrine of divine beauty and excellency. The chapter argues that Edwards's doctrine of divine excellency forms a conceptual bridge between his work in theology proper and his doctrine of the Trinity, paving the way for his later speculations on the metaphysics of the Trinity. The chapter also argues that his doctrine of divine excellency is not necessarily incompatible with a doctrine of divine simplicity. Utilizing recent work in historical theology by Richard Muller and others, the chapter shows that for many classical theologians, including the Reformed orthodox whose works formed the staple of Edwards's theological education, divine simplicity is a piece of apophatic theology. It says that God is noncomposite but not how he is noncomposite. Edwards's doctrine of excellency, in keeping with the doctrines of the Trinity in these Reformed, and catholic, writers, has a place for simplicity as well as the plurality necessary for a doctrine of the Trinity.

Hilary of Poitiers’s doctrine of divine infinity lies at the foundation of his theological project, and its full significance for his overall thought has not been realized. This chapter argues that it cannot be without an exploration of the exegetical foundation of the doctrine in De Trinitate, namely, John 1:1–4. The argument begins by showing first how infinity transforms Hilary’s argument of Father-Son relations. Second, this transformation aids Hilary toward a working definition of divine infinity. Third, this chapter shows that Hilary provides a new interpretation of the critical text of Proverbs 8:22 due to his John 1:1–4 interpretive foundation. This has immense implications for his trinitarian anthropology. Fourth, these implications are elucidated through his understanding of a progressus in infinitum of the mind toward the infinite God. Hilary’s discussion of divine infinity has significant epistemological conclusions, which reorient how humanity is seen to know and relate to God.