The Purpose of Mystery, Paradox and Contradiction

trin3Orthodox Christianity is deeply associated with the word “mystery.”  Its theological hymns are replete with paradox, repeatedly affirming two things to be true that are seemingly contradictory. Most of these things are associated with what is called “apophatic” theology, or a theology that is “unspeakable.” This same theological approach is sometimes called the Via Negativa. This is easily misunderstood in common conversation. An Orthodox discussion takes place and reaches an impasse. Inevitably, someone will remind us that some things are simply a “mystery,” etc. But this “unknowableness” is actually a misuse of mystery and its place in the Church’s life. For though mystery, paradox and contradiction frame something as “unknowable,” they do so for the purpose of knowing.

To know is not the equivalent of mastering facts. Knowledge, in the New Testament, is equated with salvation itself (Jn. 17:3). But what kind of knowing is itself salvific? In the simplest terms, it is knowledge as participation.

Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also.” (Joh 8:19)

and

O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them. (Joh 17:25-26)

Christ is by no means speaking of knowledge as information. Instead, it is knowledge that “dwells” in them. Such knowledge cannot be gained by the simple sharing of information nor by the acquisition of a system of ideas. It is experiential, on the one hand, but in a manner that is itself transformative.

We experience things all the time. It is possible to say that we are changed by experience. But it is another thing to say that the experience itself now dwells in you and communicates a new life to you. At its very heart, this is the nature of revelation. And this is key within the life of Orthodoxy. What dwells in us as “knowledge,” is, in fact, Christ Himself as knowledge. Christ Himself is the revealer, the revealing and what is revealed.

It would be possible to “master” Orthodoxy as a system of thought. One could know a set of doctrines and teachings, and even be able to enter into discussion and argument. But this in no way actually constitutes true knowledge of Orthodoxy, much less Orthodoxy as saving knowledge.

The Orthodox faith is a making-known-of-the-mystery. And this is utterly essential. The Orthodox faith is not static content, but the dynamic reality of the living Christ. It is, properly, a revealed faith, and cannot be had in any other manner. And strangely, the mystery is as essential as the knowing. Only that which is hidden can be revealed.

It is a common mistake to treat the New Testament itself as the revelation of God, or the collection of the information newly revealed through Christ. We historicize Christ’s work as a set of teachings, an assemblage of theological information that we may now discuss, dissect and comprehend, rendering into nothing more than religion. However, the New Testament (and the fullness of the Church) have the mystery within them, but must first be encountered as mystery before they can be encountered as knowledge.

Paradox and contradiction, hiddenness and mystery are all inherent means of saving knowledge. Their presence within Scripture and the liturgical tradition are not mere styles of communication. They provide an access into a form a knowledge that cannot be communicated in any other manner. They are not mere screens shielding wonderful knowledge from our view, a knowledge that once revealed can then be shared without reference to the mystery. Because the kind of knowledge that is saving knowledge both causes and requires an inner transformation, it cannot be shared in a manner other than that through which it was first acquired. The single most important means of saving knowledge in the Tradition is the liturgical life of the Church. It is there that we sing the mystery. The hymns of the Church delight in paradox and contradiction. They urge the heart to enter into this mystical bounty. Those who have no experience of Orthodox liturgical worship can only wonder at this. Those who do, I daresay, understand exactly what I am saying.

We can say that it is not merely the rationalization of Christian teaching that is problematic, but even the efforts to make plain and straightforward and easily accessible what can only be known through mystery, paradox and contradiction. For this reason, it is true that most engagement in theological speech is done by those who don’t know what they are talking about. What passes for “theology” can easily be little more than one swine discussing pearls with another.

True theology is as much a matter of how we know as it is what we know. Further, everything about our own condition also matters in both what we may know and how we may know it. Saving knowledge cannot be isolated from the whole of who we are and how we are. The experience encountered in paradox and mystery is frequently a necessary condition for knowing the truth. We may very well come away with knowledge, and yet be speechless.

I studied Orthodoxy and the Fathers for over 20 years before I was received into the Church. But there were some things that I only began to know on the day of my reception. More than that, a slow process began in which everything I thought I knew was changed. The manner of knowing the faith as a communicant made the content of faith something other than what I thought I knew. Christ is quite clear that purity of our heart is essential in the knowledge of God. St. Silouan says that we only know God to the extent that we love our enemies. So it is always right to ask of ourselves, “What is the state of my heart as I approach this mystery?”

This draws me to the topic under discussion in my most recent article. The final end of all things is a mystery. Many aspects of it are hidden within paradox. It is of little value to simply decide what you think and declare an opinion. In many ways it is similarly in vain to simply repeat the doctrines of the Church as though you knew what they were talking about. The mysteries of God are not information to be acquired: they are saving knowledge. Thus, when we draw near to the question of the final disposition of all things, we rightly regard it as a mystery. It is a mystery that we are, in fact, encouraged to enter. The mystery is not there simply to say, “None of your business.”

When we see statements such as those found in St. Isaac of Syria that point towards a total apokatastasis of all things, it should not be an occasion for suddenly declaring him to be right or wrong. He is a Father of the Church. His work is an invitation to an encounter with Christ. Until we encounter Christ within the paradox of that mystery, we don’t know anything on the topic.

There is a story within the Scriptures that, like the ascent of Moses on the Holy Mountain (I have in mind St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses) also points towards the mystery of God with particular attention to the matter of judgment. Consider the story of the hospitality of Abraham (Gen. 18). Abraham entertains the three figures, described both as angels and “the Lord.” Indeed, the language shifts between singular and plural, presenting a paradox to any reader (and, we may assume, to Abraham as well). But the attention of the visitors turns to the matter of Sodom and Gomorrah and we read:

And the LORD said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing, since Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.” (17-19)

God chooses to share the mystery of the coming judgment with Abraham, “for I have known him.” The story continues with the conversation concerning the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, with Abraham interceding for mercy. Abraham “argues” with God for the salvation of all. Abraham is the “friend” of God, from whom God will not “hide” His intentions.

In the paradox of God’s mercy and His love, together with the paradox of an eternal hell and the apokatastasis of all things, we are invited, like Abraham, to an encounter with God. It is both a place of deep mystery and of union with God. A pure heart requires that we stand with Abraham in the presence of God and argue on behalf of the unrighteous. As I have noted, in arguing for them, we argue for ourselves as well, for we dare not number ourselves among the righteous.

My intention in writing about this topic has not been to engage in theological argument, but to perhaps usher others into the confrontation with God. There is a reason that we read of such confrontations within the lives of the saints. They are not contentious souls, except when it comes to pursuing God. Following the lead and urging of the saints, we pursue God even into the judgment itself. Father Zacharias of Essex, commenting on the work of the Elder Sophrony says that in the fulfillment of our true calling in God:

Man becomes what Job prophetically desired to see, that is, someone who, in imitation of Christ, is stretched out between heaven and earth, putting one hand upon the shoulder of God and the other on man’s shoulder. It is precisely then that man, as he prays for the entire world, becomes ‘royal priesthood’ [1 Pet: 2: 5,9]. This Christ-like all-embracing love is the sign which bears witness to the restoration of the primordial ‘image’ in man…. From Christ, Our Way and Our Life

This prayer for the entire world includes even the unrighteous in hell. We do in our prayer what Christ has done in the fullness of His being. We do not pronounce on hell, but we pray there. It is the last measure of our union with Christ. It is the fulfillment of St. Paul’s cry to know the “communion of His sufferings.” It may very well feel like darkness and paradox, but it is also light and life.

About Fr. Stephen Freeman

Fr. Stephen is a retired Archpriest of the Orthodox Church in America. He is also author of Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe, and Face to Face: Knowing God Beyond Our Shame, as well as the Glory to God podcast series on Ancient Faith Radio.


Comments

126 responses to “The Purpose of Mystery, Paradox and Contradiction”

  1. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Father,

    Arguably a poor choice of words. Or at least a surprising choice. But I stand by it nonetheless – the God who is Love constrains our libertarian freedom towards Himself. A choice towards God, He who is Goodness Himself, is the only true free choice. All else is a slip into nothingness. An antimony of the highest order. St Paul found true and only freedom as the bondslave of Christ. The road to Damascus although it may appear as compulsion at first glance, judging by the fruit it bore I believe it was the Voice of Love.

    But I don’t wish to argue, merely to explain.

  2. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    ” Considering evil as having a true existence is simply beyond the pale.”

    Ah but that is the dialectic – the “existence vs. non-existence” that is on an essentialist level. This forces you into an equation like “evil = true (real)” OR “evil=false (not real)”.
    The terms are forcing us down certain roads.

    Yes, on that level evil has no “true existence”. Yet, it is somehow still here (obviously) and active, so how can this be? I believe the answer is found beyond the dialectic of good vs. evil and an “essentialist” either/or (now I am being the neo-platonist! 😉 ). Persons are the ground on which the dialectic (the drama) of good and evil takes place (so to speak), so any theology has to start there and *truly be personal* and not have persons be mere “agents” or units of a dialectical summation. This is why Hart is compelled to speak about the limits and character of free will, and why his understanding of persons seems to be very “naturalistic” and compelled. He is setting up a straw man IMO when he says that to not follow his line of reasoning an interlocutor is necessarily assuming a “libertarian” anthropology/human will (another either/or dialectic).

    So yes, evil does not exist essentially (by nature) and the Tradition recognizes even the Devil to have fallen (and not be a demiurge – evil unto himself with a non-contingent reality/nature). However I don’t grant that I have to then follow a dialectic to a compelled universalism because of the recognition, and I don’t believe the Tradition has…

  3. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Thank you Karen for abiding and the encouragement.

    Thank you Father for your time and insight. A true shepherd speaking

    Thank you Christopher for your time and thoughts

  4. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    I am speaking of these things, good and evil, in the same language as the Fathers. You’re labeling it Neo-Platonist. If that’s so, then Orthodoxy is neo-Platonist. I think you’re abusing the term. I am saying that evil has no existence. It is an abuse of the free will, nothing more. That is the clear, unambiguous teaching of the Fathers. Not philosophy. The Fathers.

  5. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Father,

    I don’t I think you recall but a long time ago (must of been around when I first found your site) that I said I might not be Orthodox when it comes to this matter. I don’t disagree with an essentialist dialectical negation of evil and I do not grant a dualism in God, but I don’t think it is the end all and be all of the subject. It (in of itself) does not account for evil and does not explain our relationship to it (what is our ontological relationship to “nothingness”?) and the *power* of evil in this world. You have to get to the Personal to do that.

    IF the Fathers are simple neo-platonists, then no doubt about it I am not Orthodox, not even a little bit. However, even a cursory reading (the only kind I have ever done though that is changing – mostly Origen so far) of the early Christological-to-Trinitarian debates (everything up to Photius) reveals the Fathers were not *simple* neo-platonists. Origen himself was not a simple neo-platonist at all – which begs the question of what exactly the 5th ecumenical council was condemning (for it appears to be a rather bland neo-platontic metaphysic that some “Christians” evidently tried to meld with their faith – it was not what Origen himself was doing). I am confident the Fathers are not doing “neo-platonism”. However, as many others far smarter than I have noted there is a platonic tendency in Origen and the Alexandrian school that is real and if “unchecked” (by Antioch or elsewhere) can lead (and has lead) to certain kinds of neo-platonic presuppositions and dialectics seeping there way into Christian theology. I believe that is what has happened around the recent “Orthodox universalism” (for all the reasons I have stated) and nothing you or anyone else has said has disabused me of this working theory though I am not beyond correction.

    There is a reason there is this theological “cluster” of universalism, hell and its eternity or lack of, evil and its character, etc. I suspect (based on some reading I did 20 years ago) Maximus and his anthropology, and Palamas and his distinction of essence/energy are keys to an Orthodox understanding of this cluster. Farrell (putting aside his current activity and the light if any it puts on his scholarship under Bishop Kallistos and while he taught at St. Tikon’s) goes to some length to distinguish Maximus from BOTH Augustine AND Origen. When I read Hart, I can’t tell the difference between it and an Origenistic anthropology. Others have noted that Hart gets Maximus wrong in the details of human will and freedom. As I have said, we need a “Joyful Infernalist” to come along and help us with this cluster 🙂

    So in short no, Orthodoxy is not neo-Platonist.

  6. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    Of course Orthodoxy is not neo-Platonist. But they use a common vocabulary and share a number of common ideas. But the Fathers had a true mastery and were able to adequately express the faith with proper caveats and distinctions.

    You are saying something that comes fearfully close to being idiosyncratic, which simply becomes private opinion. This from St. Athanasius is a classical Patristic statement:

    “for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good.”

    That is in De Incarnatione, 1.4. He did not need to defend it. It was commonly accepted and understood. Anything that gives evil a true existence (being) would be something other than Christianity. In that, I would be very cautious around Farrell. More than that, Athanasius’ entire approach (which includes this) is integral to the doctrine of God within Orthodoxy. I can’t think of any refinement that would alter it.

    Evil is a “kinetic” phenomenon, not existential or ontological. It is a movement in a wrong direction. But we do not posit “existence” or “being” to a movement. It’s a direction. But all created things are good. That is a matter of Divine revelation and essential to Christianity. Anything else would be heresy.

  7. newenglandsun Avatar

    Fr Stephen,
    I’m wondering if it comes to the existence or non-existence of evil that there are two translations (both being equivalents to evil) that are being dappled on when it comes to this. Much like the four translations of love that C.S. Lewis works on.

    For instance, in the scholastic theological method, it is very well-emphasized that there is some sort of “natural evil”.

    St Thomas Aquinas differentiates between the “evil of penalty” and the “evil of fault” but St Anselm also says that evil is essentially non-being. And as the Angelic Doctor further emphasizes, no being by participation can be evil but rather it is due to privation of participation.

    So they agree with each other depending on how they define their terms. But if there is an “evil of penalty” then the question would be whether this is an existent “evil” or a nonexistent “evil” if this is actually genuinely an “evil”.

    But I prefer to let the philosophers worry about that stuff.

  8. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    No doubt I am being idiosyncratic! Somehow I am coming across as disagreeing with the point of evil as negation and not having a “nature” as such. I am saying there is more to understanding evil and that “more” is found in the theology of Personhood (for Persons “do” evil). I of course do not speak for Farrell, but he does point (as do others – such as Sherwood) to an anthropology (a “more”) that is distinctive from BOTH Origen and Augustine in Maximus (linking Origen AND Augustine to a Plotinian simplicity and Maximus/Palamas to a Christian essence/energy distinction, critical for an adequate understanding of both Person and evil). The cluster to which I referred is being answered/guided by the voice of Origen through Hart, and it is this that I disagree with. Even if Hart’s theology can not be adequately described Origenism (say for argument’s sake it is a new thing) I do not subscribe to anything that leads necessarily to universalism by a moral dialectic, and I don’t have to because that is not the Faith (and I am not alone in this understanding of course)!! 🙂 Indeed I would go so far as to say that if you want to get to universal salvation through a moral dialectic, you don’t need the messiness/ambiguity of Christianity at all.

    Now, it is apparent to me that my “infernalist” position is interpreted by some as “arguing for Hell”, “denying the hope of Apokatastasis”, granting essentially to evil, and possibly even denying God and His Mercy (maybe I am even the kind of guy that kicks puppies and scowls at babies 😉 ) – but this is a misunderstanding. I don’t have the proper “pastoral” response to this misunderstanding no doubt, perhaps you can help with that…

  9. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    Obviously personhood is critical in thinking about evil. But first, when we affirm that nothing is evil by nature – no essence is evil – we affirm that nothing is necessarily evil. Evil has no necessity, for if it did, it would be God’s own creation. Personhood is the locus of freedom. And it is in that freedom that what we call evil can be described. It is simply an abuse, a misdirection. I am not personally persuaded that essence/energy distinction is useful in any of this. Frankly, it is a very slippery area that quickly becomes so complex that no one can follow it.

    I do not use the term infernalist. I’m not part of that argument. You’re mistaking this for a different blog (and perhaps assuming that I’ve said things that I have not).

    Viz. Hart. Anyone who can give him a solid argument with proper support, etc., would find him a willing audience. He’s not an argument, he’s a scholar. And I’m not him. You have yet to say anything that changes what I have said are the pros and cons of the matter – other than to assert “the Faith” in a manner that begs the question.

  10. Michael Bauman Avatar
    Michael Bauman

    Why do we try for certainty in matters in which we can have no certainty?

    We assert God’s mercy for all on both existential and Scriptural testimony.

    We can equally assert that there is a fire in our future if not our present.

    What we cannot know are the particulars.

    We can reasonably assume that no matter what we come up with it is likely to be wrong because: “His ways are not our ways.”

  11. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Thanks for the response Father. Quickly, the essence/energy distinction comes into play IMO because of the tendency to turn God into a kind of “essence” that is “Goodness as such”, so on the one hand it allows us to see that God transcends the moral dialectic of good and evil (because his Goodness plays out in the “energy” space), and on the other begins to give us something to grapple with as far as evil that moves us a step beyond a negation (a negation which is true). Allow me to apologize to you for appearing to impute onto you the “infernalist” pejorative and the like!

  12. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    I do not think that shifting the Good to the Divine Energies changes the conversation. Energies have existence, however we may describe them, they are an aspect of existence. And existence itself is the gift of God and is therefore inherently good.

  13. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Michael,

    It’s not a quest for certainty but a walking through our faith, an attempt to faithfully understand that which has been traditioned to us – important matters such as the nature and meaning of love, goodness, salvation, evil, justice, mercy, our lives, and so forth.

    No doubt in my mind, if the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils would have caught ear of your objection (not calling into question your earnestness and sincerity) they would have protested to no end about the utter absurdity of your position. We are all the richer for their refusal to give in to ignorance, and due to the fruit of their hard labor we benefit such as when we recite the Symbol of our Faith, affirm Chalcedonian Christology, or stand in the presence of a Holy icon.

  14. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    It’s not a quest for certainty but a walking through our faith, an attempt to faithfully understand that which has been traditioned to us – important matters such as the nature and meaning of love, goodness, salvation, evil, justice, mercy, our lives, and so forth.

    While I do not disagree, I think that more often we simply need to experience these things, to live in them and let them wash over us. I find the more I let go of “understanding” the more I am actually living and focusing on God.

  15. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Robert,
    I don’t mean to speak for Michael, but he said search for certainty in places where we have no certainty. That does not mean every question or controversy. There are indeed places where we have not been given certainty (and for good reason, I think). And Michael’s words seem quite appropriate.

  16. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Father,

    Well this conversation has got me to read a bit more around Maximus and this issue. Here is a tidbit of Farrell’s “Free Choice in St. Maximus The Confessor”:

    “…It would appear that the Confessor has ascribed the will not to the nature but to the person. And this, of course, is simply another way of stating the position of the Monotheletes for whom the will was hypostatic. And if that is so, then the apokatasasis is the only result, for Christ, having the will only of His divine hypostasis, will in that case determine human nature and human persons apart from their own wills in an irresistible manner (by His resurrection). Conversely, if the will was exclusively natural and not personal, then the same result is inevitably attained. However, the impasse is completely avoided by St. Maximus, who will not accept any reduction or confusion of the distinction between person and nature…..for St. Maximus there is thus no such thing as a “will in general”, a will which may be considered in abstraction from its hypostatic mode of employment. This in turn means that the doctrine of apokatastasis has been reworked along more Trinitarian lines. There is, for St. Maxims, an apokatastasis of human *nature* to the condition of immortality and Ever-being in the General Resurrection. But, this is a determination of the creature’s immortality, not of its own *hypostatic state* in that immortality, which may be Ever-Well-Being or Ever-Ill-Being….”

    So apparently it is St. Maximus that can help us with “the cluster” (whether Farrell in the end reads him 100% correct or something much less) as Maximus is taking this cluster head on in his Ambigua. God willing some day I will have the time to really dive into this document…

  17. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Christopher,
    From some of my reading, there is very strong indication that Maximus held to a complete apokatastasis. But I’m not an expert there either. If it is the case, it would likely be beneath the surface rather than in the open.

  18. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Father,

    I am the first to acknowledge the limits of cataphatic theology. However, my point is that the uncertainty objection becomes a convenient means to end the conversation.

    As late as AD 369 St Athanasius had no certainty about the distinction of homoousios and hypostasis. Imagine if he and others had stopped then. Instead these uncertainties had to be carefully worked out, vocabulary expanded, ideas accepted and rejected, definitions made and completed, etc.

  19. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Byron,

    I think that more often we simply need to experience these things, to live in them and let them wash over us. I find the more I let go of “understanding” the more I am actually living and focusing on God.

    I don’t see a true dilemma here, as if experience and understanding are incompatible, as if we must chose between one or the other. The opposite seems quite true to me – that they are quite complementary, “synergistic” if you will. Experience would be greatly impoverished to the point of absurdity (one’s private echo chamber) without knowledge, and vice versa.

    So, I maintain, we must continue our quest to better understand our faith. To use the apophatic (the “His ways are higher than our ways”) as a claim to forestall the cataphatic exposes itself to be naivete or laziness, or maybe both.

  20. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Byron,

    Sorry I need to correct a mistake in my previous comment. The first paragraph is what you wrote, the next two are my response:

    You wrote:

    “I think that more often we simply need to experience these things, to live in them and let them wash over us. I find the more I let go of “understanding” the more I am actually living and focusing on God.”

    I don’t see a true dilemma here, as if experience and understanding are incompatible, as if we must chose between one or the other. The opposite seems quite true to me – that they are quite complementary, “synergistic” if you will. Experience would be greatly impoverished to the point of absurdity (one’s private echo chamber) without knowledge, and vice versa.

    So, I maintain, we must continue our quest to better understand our faith. To use the apophatic (the “His ways are higher than our ways”) as a claim to forestall the cataphatic exposes itself to be naivete or laziness, or maybe both.

  21. Christopher Avatar
    Christopher

    Robert,

    In my limited “understanding”, I think the Tradition says (or at least some Saints within her) that while there is not a “conflict” (as in an either/or) between “experience” and “understanding”, I am pretty sure the Tradition puts them in a hierarchy. In other words, they each have their domain and “understanding” does not completely overlap with “experience”. Now, granted “understanding” is normatively defined as discursive reason, but even if you expand it out into intuition or experience (say, of God’s “uncreated energies”) there is a real sense in which you simply experience and not really understand God, for how can one “stand under” that which you stand upon?

    I am thinking of Nicholas Motovilov’s famous discussion with St. Seraphim of Sarov when he asks at the end of a serious of questions where he admits he does not truly “understand”:

    “Nevertheless” I replied “I do not understand how I can be certain that I am in the Spirit of God. How can I discern for myself His true manifestation in me?”

    Father Seraphim replied: ” I have already told you, your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize His presence in us. So what do you want my son?”

    “I want to understand it well” I said

    Then Fr. Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: “We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. Why don’t you look at me?”

    I replied: “I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. Your face has become brighter than the sun, and the my eyes ache with pain.”

    Father Seraphim said: “Don’t be alarmed, your Godliness! Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise, you would not be able to see me as I am.”

    So there is a sense in which our subject (God) escapes even the most generous definition of “understanding” and thus can only be “experienced” and “revealed”. Of course the Christian life is a life, and not a philosophy or set of doctrines and as such is a quest for the “experience” of God.

    All that said obviously the Church does have a rich deposit of dogmatic theology and “reasonable explanations” that we can point to and use for our own edification, and of course part of our salvation involves “knowing” God and “knowing” the Faith and Commandments. The subject you and I have been discussing, apokatastasis, has been dealt with directly by the Saints and much can be said I think. Still we must admit we really don’t “understand” the Eschaton and can only hope and pray we “experience” it in our hearts and in our full being on the Last Day…

    FWIW

  22. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    Robert,

    As I said, I don’t actually disagree with the statement you made; experience and understanding are not opposed to one another but, in my life, they have very different affects on the individual.

    My thinking is that I personally find trying to understand these things taking me farther from God as I wrestle with things and do not seek Him. The desire to understand can be a self-filling desire, and it often comes at the expense of the self-emptying of which Father writes. It’s not a “dilemma” to “better understand our faith”, but it can create one if we are not careful in our quest.

    Forgive me for not being clearer previously. I hope this helps. God bless!

  23. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    Byron,

    Of course I do not disagree with you in principle and certainly don’t call into question your private (but not uncommon) struggles, but I do strongly disagree in terms of applicability. This is not to say that everyone need be compelled to concern themselves with matters that are difficult to understand. But the reality that things can and do distract us from God should not be used to bludgeon the aspirations of those that have the desire, and see the need, to explicate certain pertinent matters of Christian revelation. As an anecdotal note of caution it is otherwise irrelevant to the topic discussed.

  24. Brandon Avatar
    Brandon

    Father – harkening back to your comment about thinking of the river of fire as uncreated… how should one view modern evil (things) in this world such as “a pornography” or in the future a possible “super-artificial intelligent robot”…..things that to me seem hard to view even sacramentally. Can all things man made be viewed sacramentally or is it more accurate to say that all good things can be attributed to God whereas a pornography could be thought of as non existent – rather than an existent evil?

    Thank you in advance.

  25. Fr. Stephen Freeman Avatar

    Brandon,
    All things are created good. The people in a pornographic event are, for example, essentially good. They are behaving in a manner that is moving towards non-existence (evil). Those actions are disappearing and will come to nothing, when all is said and done. Evil has no existence of itself. It is sustained not by “being” but by a perversion of wills.

  26. Byron Avatar
    Byron

    But the reality that things can and do distract us from God should not be used to bludgeon the aspirations of those that have the desire, and see the need, to explicate certain pertinent matters of Christian revelation.

    I would never want to “bludgeon the aspirations” of anyone in this manner. A great deal of this happens right here on the blog! I think we are in a somewhat “violent agreement” concerning this subject. May God bless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Subscribe to blog via email

Support the work

Your generous support for Glory to God for All Things will help maintain and expand the work of Fr. Stephen. This ministry continues to grow and your help is important. Thank you for your prayers and encouragement!


Latest Comments

  1. Thanks for your answer, Father. I keep saying that the effort to build the building really has to be a…

  2. Dee, Vladimir Lossky used (or coined) the phrase “participatory adherence” as his definition of faith. It is a kind of…

  3. Father, I believe the ‘work’ in your last comment to Matthew might be simply the work of the will to…


Read my books

Everywhere Present by Stephen Freeman

Listen to my podcast



Categories


Archives