Sin and it's Relationship to Apophatic Theology

Landon Caeli said:

To paraphrase the writings of Pseudo Dionysius, and Clement of Alexandria, we can't really understand, or observe the nature of God, since He's "unknowable", so it is through "unknowing" that we can begin to approach the God-Head.

So in other words, it is by unknowing the things that are not God, such as sin, that we begin to grow closer to God... This is what is known as the "Negative Way", or Apophatic Theology.
Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

I was curious if others had already contemplated these concepts, and if you have, maybe you have some opinions or additions you would like to share about understanding God the "Negative Way".

Thanks... And have a great day.

View attachment 302830
Rosa Celeste: Dante and Beatrice gaze upon the highest Heaven

Click to expand...

My mother particularly, I think, as my siblings and I were growing up, kept on and on about knowing God, and knowing good, as a hedge against new ideas others would bring up as 'ok', that were actually bad. It was not to be the learning of what was bad, to be able to identify it in order to deny it, but knowing what is good. Most of all, of course, to know God himself was the highest aspiration.

Landon Caeli said:

So in other words, it is by unknowing the things that are not God, such as sin, that we begin to grow closer to God... This is what is known as the "Negative Way", or Apophatic Theology.
Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

This isn't quite right. The rejection or unknowing of sin would not really be apophatic theology.

Apophatic theology is basically a way of approaching God through negation. In its strongest and most characteristic forms it would be the negation of all human concepts (e.g. goodness, love, etc.). The idea is that God is so utterly transcendent and beyond our thoughts that it is even erroneous to say that God is good.

I find that for most Christians this approach won't be helpful or easily understood.

Landon Caeli said:

This seems to relate well, on the other hand, to the positive way of viewing God... Known as Cataphatic Theology. It's the opposite way of viewing God as what's described in the OP.

Click to expand...

Yes, but I think it is superior in at least two ways: one is, it is obedient to Scripture, and the other is, it is a focus on what is good, instead of what is bad. No self-fulfilling prophesies of doom.

zippy2006 said:

Apophatic theology is basically a way of approaching God through negation. In its strongest and most characteristic forms it would be the negation of all human concepts (e.g. goodness, love, etc.). The idea is that God is so utterly transcendent and beyond our thoughts that it is even erroneous to say that God is good. I find that for most Christians this approach won't be helpful or easily understood.

Click to expand...

Theology is "reflection on the experience of knowing God."

Of course, God is not completely knowable, which one of us can completely understand the Trinity. But to say that God is completely unknowable as per Apophatic Theology is also wrong. There are many passages in the NT about actually knowing God.

If God is completely unknowable then there can be no Christian theology and we might as well be Buddhists.

Landon Caeli said:

Or perhaps this represents my error in correlating Apophatic theology with sin... When in actuality, the concept "erases" concepts that are not God, using scripture to do it.

Maybe instead of saying it's a "negative way", it would be more appropriate to call it an "inverse way". In other words, we're not focusing on bad things, instead, we're eliminating wrong things by completely removing them from the picture. And so by removing what God is not, we better understand God.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how negating the reality and relevance of sin (for one example) helps us better understand God. Not only does it work practically to help us know him and his love, but the Bible also says the same. It was necessary, for us to understand what and who God is.

Landon Caeli said:

But God has nothing to do with sin... We'll never understand God better through sin, or anything else that He isn't - these are just a distractions. Right..? Or no.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that we should sin that grace abound. I'm saying that God has set things up so that there is sin, for a purpose. The fall of Adam was planned —it was not an unforeseen error.

Romans shows why God planned that sin be. Here's just one of many places: "...our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly..." Romans 3:5

Landon Caeli said:

Right, the discussion about sin correlating with Apophatic Theology is my own creation, I should have worded that much differently than I did in the OP. Good catch on your part.

...But as a concept, do you suppose the rejection of sin could be considered a kind of Apophatic Theology lite..? Theoretically..? It seems related to me, even if just as a small step toward the concept.

Click to expand...

So the rejection of sin is cataphatic theology. God is good and sin is evil, therefore we must reject sin. This is all based on positive knowledge and predication.

In your OP you talk about the "unknowing" of sin. Well that's more interesting than merely rejecting. That reminded me of 1 Corinthians 14:20, "Be babes in evil." You could argue that this relates to apophatic theology, but I wouldn't really want to be the one to try to make that argument.

Apophatic theology characteristically denies qualities of God that are commonly thought to belong to God. Since sin and evil are not commonly thought to belong to God their negation wouldn't be apophatic theology.

Here is an example of apophatic theology from Meister Eckhart, Sermon 67:


This passage was condemned in the Papal Bull, In Agro Dominico.

Landon Caeli said:

Upon my own reflections on what God might be like, I do sometimes wonder how scary it might be, knowing only what I do as a mere mortal man, to experience God.

Click to expand...

Right, that is one of the central intuitions behind apophatic theology.

Landon Caeli said:

To paraphrase the writings of Pseudo Dionysius, and Clement of Alexandria, we can't really understand, or observe the nature of God, since He's "unknowable", so it is through "unknowing" that we can begin to approach the God-Head.

So in other words, it is by unknowing the things that are not God, such as sin, that we begin to grow closer to God... This is what is known as the "Negative Way", or Apophatic Theology.
Apophatic theology - Wikipedia

I was curious if others had already contemplated these concepts, and if you have, maybe you have some opinions or additions you would like to share about understanding God the "Negative Way".

Thanks... And have a great day.

View attachment 302830
Rosa Celeste: Dante and Beatrice gaze upon the highest Heaven

Click to expand...

i have contemplated these topics, I think

i don’t know exactly what you’re thinking but I can try to give some thoughts

first, I never heard apophatic, don’t know what it is

i look at the concept of getting closer to the Lord as a turning towards him, on a moment by moment basis

but to turn to the Lord, we MUST turn from evil/sin

you said we cannot understand the nature of God

i agree, and also believe we cannot understand the nature of sin

if we could, we wouldn’t witness so much sin in christianity, and there wouldn’t be so much disagreement over what sin is

but, when we’re dealing with other people, no matter where they are or who they are, if we ask ourselves: are we loving them as ourselves? are we being kind and thoughtful? are we listening to them? are we following the Lord’s commandment?

or are we thinking only of ourselves? and our needs? and our ideas of sin? and our ideas of what we think is right?

if it is the latter, we’re not facing the Lord, and we could use an attitude adjustment.

if it’s the former, we’re incrementally getting closer to the Lord


imo

I love Apophatic Theology, and find it can produce a certain ecstasy, as it is inherently mystical, allowing us to probe through deductive reasoning from negations the “dazzling darkness” of the Divine Essence.

The Liturgist said:

I love Apophatic Theology, and find it can produce a certain ecstasy, as it is inherently mystical, allowing us to probe through deductive reasoning from negations the “dazzling darkness” of the Divine Essence.

Click to expand...

Apophatic theology brings to mind the Hindu concept of Nirguna Brahman: God without attributes.

I'm not saying that it is wrong or heretical, and I'm quite cognizant that many Christian mystics talked about God in these terms.

But I believe that Christ came to the world precisely in order to make God known to the world.

Andrewn said:

Apophatic theology brings to mind the Hindu concept of Nirguna Brahman: God without attributes.

I'm not saying that it is wrong or heretical, and I'm quite cognizant that many Christian mystics talked about God in these terms.

But I believe that Christ came to the world precisely in order to make God known to the world.

Click to expand...

Oh I agree entirely, and so do the Eastern Orthodox who engage in apophatic theology. The other ecstatic realm of mystical theology for me is contemplating the ramifications of Communicatio Idiomatum, which refers to the orthodox Christological principal that because of the hypostatic union of the transcendent divine nature and the ineffable human nature, any statement one can make about our Lord pertaining to one nature is communicated to the other. Thus, we find exquisite Orthodox hymns for Good Friday about how He who created the universe and is boundless and uncontainable is now contained in a tomb. A lot of the Eastern Orthodox hymnody would seem to a poorly catechized Christian who did not understand Chalcedonian Christology or the Christology of St. Cyril the Great, St. Severus of Antioch and the Oriental Orthodox, as paradoxical, and some of it is, admits Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, but to the extent it is paradoxical, it is so only because the essential doctrines of the Incarnation, of an infinite God condescending to become human and pur on our finite and fallen nature in order to save us from death and glorify us, so that we might become by grace what He is by nature, are themselves outwardly paradoxical, but I would argue they possess an angelic, mystical harmony which is not of this world, but from God, who is Love and whose actions are only for our sakes based on His great love for us.

Apophatic theology plays a certain role is as stated by John Scotus Erigena, "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything [i.e., "not any created thing"]. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

St. Cyril said "For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge."

So we can say, "God is Good." but in all honesty, we do not know what "Good" means to God. We only know what "Good" is in our very limited capacity. God is Love? Only God, in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, showed was what true agape, boundless Love is, through his Death and Resurrection. All we can do is stand at the Cross, and wondering how the Immortal became Mortal and then rose from the grave.

One hymn that @The Liturgist references is this, read near the end of the Great Hours on the morning of Great Friday:

Today he who hung the earth upon the waters is hung upon a Tree,
The King of the Angels is crowned with thorns.
He who wraps the heaven in clouds is wrapped in mocking purple.
He who freed Adam in the Jordan receives a slap on the face.
The Bridegroom of the Church is transfixed with nails.
The Son of the Virgin is pierced by a lance.
We bow to your passion, O Christ (bow).
We bow to your passion, O Christ (bow).
We bow to your passion, O Christ (bow).
Show us also your glorious Resurrection.

GreekOrthodox said:

Apophatic theology plays a certain role is as stated by John Scotus Erigena, "We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything [i.e., "not any created thing"]. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

St. Cyril said "For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge."

So we can say, "God is Good." but in all honesty, we do not know what "Good" means to God. We only know what "Good" is in our very limited capacity. God is Love? Only God, in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, showed was what true agape, boundless Love is, through his Death and Resurrection. All we can do is stand at the Cross, and wondering how the Immortal became Mortal and then rose from the grave.

One hymn that @The Liturgist references is this, read near the end of the Great Hours on the morning of Great Friday:

Today he who hung the earth upon the waters is hung upon a Tree,
The King of the Angels is crowned with thorns.
He who wraps the heaven in clouds is wrapped in mocking purple.
He who freed Adam in the Jordan receives a slap on the face.
The Bridegroom of the Church is transfixed with nails.
The Son of the Virgin is pierced by a lance.
We bow to your passion, O Christ (bow).
We bow to your passion, O Christ (bow).
We bow to your passion, O Christ (bow).
Show us also your glorious Resurrection.

Click to expand...

I do think I am well within the bounds of Palamist Orthodoxy however and the apophatic theology of Saints Cyril or Jerusalem, Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and his best friend Gregory the Theologian, that is to say, the esteemed Cappadocians, and also St. Psuedo-Dionysius, if I disagree with John Scotus Erigena and say God owing to His knowledge being boundless and unrestrained, which is to say, omniscient, does know Himself, the three persons of the Trinity as Metropolitan Ware says abiding in an eternal union of perfect love, but the rest of what he says is accurate, and of course your quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem I accept without question.