Gender of the Deity

[shunyadragon]

The only sources I have pointed to so far are Gregory of Nyssaa, Pseudo-Dionysius, John of the Cross, and Thomas Aquinas, but I probably won't have time to point to specific texts. If I recall correctly, the is a wiki article on apophatic theology that does characterize the Orthodox tradition as considering apophatic theology as superior, while the West holds more of a dialectical view. For more modern representatives, I would point to hermeneutic theologians and even some postmodernists perhaps. I'll see if I can contribute more eventually but 'm between two business trips and taking my wife to a Broadway play.

EDIT: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoph...logy#section_7

"In Orthodox theology, apophatic theology is taught as superior to cataphatic theology. While Aquinas felt positive and negative theology should be seen as dialetical correctives to each other, like thesis and antithesis producing a synthesis, Lossky argues, based on his reading of Dionysius and Maximus Confessor, that positive theology is always inferior to negative theology, a step along the way to the superior knowledge attained by negation."

This article also makes your point about the Trinity:
"Adherents of the apophatic traditioninChristianity hold that, outside of directly-revealed knowledge through Scripture and Sacred Tradition (such as the Trinitarian nature of God), God in His essence is beyond the limits of what human beings (or even angels) can understand; He is transcendent in essence (ousia)."

Note, however, I disagree with this last point. It is possible that I am a voice crying in the wilderness in the Catholic tradition but I don't think so when I think back on some of my professors.

I have read some of this material, and also took classes similar to yours when studying to be a priest in the Roman Church, briefly. By superior we are talking about the ultimate nature of God, which I agree is unknowable in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. The issue is the nature of the dogma of the Trinity in traditional Christian theology, which remains the dominant Cataphatic belief in God which defines traditional Christianity as acknowledged in the reference above.

This remains the gorilla in the middle of the room.

Judaism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Bubbhism and Hinduism lack this dogma for defining God.

[robrecht]

I have read some of this material, and also took classes similar to yours when studying to be a priest in the Roman Church, briefly. By superior we are talking about the ultimate nature of God, which I agree is unknowable in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. The issue is the nature of the dogma of the Trinity in traditional Christian theology, which remains the dominant Cataphatic belief in God which defines traditional Christianity as acknowledged in the reference above.

This remains the gorilla in the middle of the room.

Judaism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, Bubbhism and Hinduism lack this dogma for defining God.

I don’t see why the dogma of the Trinity is not also subject to the same apophatic superiority or dialectic as all other cataphatic language about God. Even Darby, who is no fan of apophatic theology, cannot save Thomas from the apophatic singularity of God's simplicity.

[headheart]

Gents,

The trinity has always been an area of extreme tension for as awkward as the mental faculties are around the subject of the Incarnation it too finds little place inside the mental faculties and can only really be worshipped in spirit and truth and then when the illumination comes it is as awkward to manage with human speech faculties in much the same way that G-d has condescended to reveal the divine nature --- in Son. John 1 is a classic example of how simple English fails and yet not even the Greek helps us but I've a fine commentary on this by Dr. DA Carson which I can share if you gents are not yet familiar with this.

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

Heinrich Heine - Reisebilder.jpg


Before I attempt unpacking my pungent droppings to this thread I'd like to have clarity on one small issue, Robrecht? I notice you refer to Darby in post 32 and Darley in post 29 unless this simply a slip have we welcomed John Nelson Darby who wrote briefly in this excerpt with regard to the gender of deity:

We have got “the adoption of sons.” “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba Father.” I have got the consciousness of it; I know my place. We know God as our Father. The soul that has the Spirit of God dwelling in him knows not only the clearing of the sins of the old man, but that he is in the second Man, and knowing it, he cries, “Abba, Father.” “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified, are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,” Heb. 2:11. They are “all of one,” one set, as it were. What is my life? Christ. What is my righteousness? Christ. He is not one with the unconverted world; there is no union in incarnation. He stood for us in the cross, but He has united us with Him in glory. If I take the Father’s relationship with Christ as man, He is not ashamed to call us brethren. In Psalm 22 He says, “Thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. I will declare thy name unto my brethren.” His work was finished: as soon as that was done, He comes out in resurrection, past the power of death and of Satan, and He sends this message to His disciples: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father: and to my God and your God,” John 20:17. He had never said that before, though He called them “sister” and “mother” and “brother” in a general way. Beloved brethren, what we want is to see how Christ has united us to Himself, to see the way God has brought us into the place of the second Man, as sin brought us into the place of the first man.

From: The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Doctrinal Writings > The Collected Writings Of J. N. Darby, Doctrinal No. 9, Volume 31 > Christ In Heaven, And The Holy Spirit Sent Down by John Nelson Darby

I intend to enter this discussion in the same way that a man with one arm attempts to wield an ancient crossbow (for it is obvious to me that I am in the company of fellow descendants of the gentle apes and savage cave painters who have spent just as many years as I polishing that dull stone of human intellect upon the anvil of traditions upon which our faith is/was establish of which this thorny issue tore apart the Greek Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic Church in the 11th century resulting in the rather peculiar dual excommunication of Pope -> Patriarch and Patriarch -> Pope) ; essentially backwards going forwards, one step forward and two steps back for as the Lord's apostle instructs young Timothy in 1 Timothy 4 verse 16 (MSG) to 'cultivate these things. Immerse yourself in them. The people will all see you mature right before their eyes! Keep a firm grasp on both your character and your teaching. Don't be diverted. Just keep at it. Both you and those who hear you will experience salvation,' or from a more word for word translation (NASB) 'Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will (Lit save both yourself and those ) ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.'

My immediate reluctance and caution in these matters are due to the fact that though I threw myself into these studies with the greatest of diligence shortly after my translation out of darkness into the glory of G-d in the face of Jesus Christ in July 1976 and continued tormenting myself with the matter of the Trinity and more particularly the deity of Christ unto this date. (I do not expect you to read the full post but should you do so you will come as I did to final conflict which spun me once again into a world of frustration with regard to the deity of Christ : Was Jesus of Nazareth God? :

Here I am finally presented with a most persistent torment in the follow discourse:

In that case, Eric, I can't understand why you are not discussing the idea that the four "propositions" of trinitarianism are not consistent. In order to support fthe doctrine of tri-unity, two different meanings for God have been mixed together in a single syllogism. Therefore, the conclusion is not valid.

The statements can be made consistent by using the word “God” uniformly as a substantive. Then -
1. There is only one God. (True)
2. That one God is the Father (True)
3. That one God is the Son. (False)
4. That one God is the Spirit. (False)

Alternatively, we can make them consistent by using the word "God" in the qualitative sense (i.e., divine). Then:
1. There is only one who is divine. (False)
2. The Father is divine. (True. Of course)
3. The Son is divine. (True. As God’s own Son, he has the same nature as his Father.)
4. God’s Spirit is divine. (True. How could God’s Spirit be anything else?)

The Bible makes it clear that there are three who are divine, but only one can be called "the only true God," and that one is clearly identified (by Jesus himself) as the Father.

Do the words of the Lord Jesus not count when they contradict a fourth century doctrine?

From: Was Jesus of Nazareth GOD? by headheart ( November, 11 2010 ) - Post 123 of 126 where I finally begged that the thread be closed.

Having written my first article in the early part of 2000 with regard to this matter of the Trinity : Articles of Eric Sawyer > A Play on Words > a) The Case of the Missing Identity , b) The Myth of the Three Headed Monster , c) The Doctrine of the Trinity and d) 'it' and also engaged though most passively in a discussion between a few members of this forum and in particular the ever swift RonC in Biblical Languages 301 , I consider myself suitably interested though deliberately cautious and certainly unqualified but nonetheless confident enough to place what remains of the ghost of my vestigial end in one of the metaphorical seats in the peanut gallery of this forum while greater minds discuss, argue and debate a subject that has long tormented my mental faculties!

Here then are the links to the last two posts in a discussion where I presented some of the literature that might be useful in this regard:

Post 26 < "On The Incarnation" by Athanasius & "Athanasius: Select Works and Letters" by St. Athanasius ( Philip Schaff )
Post 29 < too many too link, however this should suffice: Early Church Fathers
From: Made verses Begotten versus Created by Urban Monk

I am going to shut up now and leave you big dogs to continue your very engaging discussion, while I attend to painting my nails and practicing for my upcoming gig on the 25.05.2012 at The Lion Inn in Thurne.


Jethro Tull - Minstrel In The Gallery

Grow___l,
Eric

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party:

Heinrich Heine - "Reisebilder"





Finis.

[robrecht]

Sorry, Eric (& Shuny), but "Darby" in #32 was supposed to be referring back to Alan Darley, whose article about Kirby's interpretation of Thomas Aquinas trinitarian theology I cited in #29. I'm traveling on business and posting from my phone so it was not so simple to go back and read an earlier post and my memory did not serve me well.

[headheart]

No harm. I just thought it'd go where the error took me and it seems it wasn't a bad choice seeing that Darby was certainly one serious Bible student and well that's what one hopes for when studying such ingewikklede vrae. Geniet jou reis, Eric.