The Trinity, Apophaticism, and the Cappadocian Fathers

Modern Theology, 2007

International Journal of Systematic Theology, 2013

In this case, the 'newness' of what is offered here might still be better served by being labelled something other than 'evangelical' -although again, it depends somewhat ironically on who is defining the term.

This article studies three advocates of the 'apophatic turn' in recent trinitarian theology: Karen Kilby, Sarah Coakley, and Katherine Sonderegger. I evaluate particular uses to which they put apophaticism in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity, dialogically building a case for an integrative approach. I conclude by sketching several constructive implications of this approach.

Verbum Vitae 41/3, 2023

For some time now, there has been a definite revival of interest in apophatic theology within religious thinking as well as at its antipodes. It often takes the form of criticism of religion, including Christian Revelation, and thus the theology based on it. From a Christian perspective, this provides an invitation to reflect on the rich heritage of apophaticism and to show its specificity as a consequence of what constitutes the specificum christianorum, i.e. the Trinitatis mystery. Important clues in this regard can be found in the thought of Vladimir N. Lossky, a prominent 20th century Orthodox theologian, a radical defender of the specific apophatic nature of Christianity and a theologian faithful to Trinitarian orthodoxy. Looking at the most important issues related to the Trinitarian dogma, we will point out that in the Russian's view, the Trinitarian antinomy is the source and foundation of Christian apophaticism and its hermeneutics. This conclusion will be based on revealing the Trinitarian antinomy as what is primordial, unconditioned by nothing, non-derivable from anything and therefore as a purely religious given and truth par excellence, accessible to man through Its free Revelation, which It also infinitely transcends.

Modern Theology, 2013

unity between the Father and Son provides the fullest account of the centrality of Christ for the coherence of the whole of the Christian faith (p. 156).

This paper explores the profound dimensions of biblical apophatic theology, an approach that emphasizes God's ineffability, transcendence, and the limits of human understanding. While often overshadowed by cataphatic (positive) theology, the apophatic tradition is deeply embedded in Scripture, offering insights into the mystery and majesty of the divine. Engaging the Bible, particularly the Protestant canon, through a deconstructive and interdisciplinary lens, this study highlights key apophatic themes: divine ineffability, hiddenness, and the limits of human knowledge. Drawing on theology, philosophy, linguistics, and literary criticism, the paper examines how apophatic theology enriches our understanding of God and challenges us to embrace the paradoxes of faith. Through linguistic analysis inspired by Wittgenstein and Derrida, philosophical parallels with Kierkegaard and Levinas, and literary insights from Barthes and Brueggemann, it demonstrates the dynamic interplay of silence, absence, and presence in biblical texts. Key examples include Exodus 3:14, Isaiah 45:15, and 1 Corinthians 13:12, where God eludes definitive description yet draws believers into a deeper relationship.

The Canadian American Theological Review, 2020

2009

Pacifica: Australasian Theological Studies, 2008

The relationship between historical studies and theological research is difficult and at times strained. How do we relate the output of armies of historical scholars to the work of systematic theology? The recent largely historical study by Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy: An approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, raises fundamental questions about many assumptions operating within present day Trinitarian theology. The present article attempts to draw out some of the implications for current Trinitarian theology, things that systematicians may need to learn from these historical studies, while also suggesting there are some things historical studies may find benefit from in listening to theologians.

Union Seminary Quarterly Review 65, no. 1&2 (2015).

Plato understood that describing God is impossible. However, according to Gregory of Nazianzus, to know God is even less possible. Gregory radicalizes apophaticism in this way as a critique of Eunomius and the claim to know the divine nature by definition as that which is without origin. Yet, one can take apophaticism in at least two very different directions. One direction might argue that because God is unknowable and ineffable, therefore, in the words of Sallie McFague, “all language about God is human construction and as such perforce ‘misses the mark’.” However, another way of taking such radical apophaticism and the insight into our historically conditioned thinking and language is precisely to recognize the enduring significance of revelation for theology. In this paper, I argue for this latter position and some of its broader implications for how we think of theology as a discipline. Specifically, I argue that while it has an intractably constructive character, theology is not reducible to human construction, and that the task of testing claims against revelation is methodologically necessary to the discipline of theology.