Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T01:04:45.767Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Doctrine in a radically apophatic register

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Susannah Ticciati*
Affiliation:
King's College London, 22 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NR, UKsusannah.ticciati@kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

This article develops an account of doctrine that seeks to reconceive the nature of doctrinal reference within the context of human transformation. It sets out from Augustine's advice to the preacher of the doctrine of predestination, discovering three layers of doctrinal interpretation, rooted in and geared towards transformation. Augustine's advice is applied generally to suggest that the role of doctrine is to ward off general classification in respect of God, making way for redemptive encounter with God. These insights generate a new perspective on the question of doctrinal reference that rules out both straightforward reference to God and straightforward denial of such reference. The article concludes by suggesting that one way through the resultant linguistic minefield would be to speak of ‘hyper-reference’ to God, with the intention of evoking the ‘more than’ of God.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g. Lash, Nicholas, Easter in Ordinary: Reflections on Human Experience and the Knowledge of God (Notre Dame, IN, and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1988), pp. 257–72Google Scholar. See also Lash, Nicholas, ‘Considering the Trinity’, Modern Theology 2/3 (1986): 183–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See esp. Kilby, Karen, ‘Aquinas, the Trinity and the Limits of Understanding’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 7/4 (2005): 414–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kilby, Karen, ‘Is an Apophatic Trinitarianism Possible?’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 12/1 (2010): 6577CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Lash, Easter in Ordinary, 258.

4 Kilby, ‘Aquinas’, 420.

5 The other three works are: De gratia et libero arbitrio (Grace and Free Choice), De correptione et gratia (Rebuke and Grace) and De praedestinatione sanctorum (The Predestination of the Saints). De praedestinatione and De dono were originally one work, probably with the title of the former; but since at least the ninth century have been treated as separate works. The English translation followed in this article (with minor adjustments) is Teske, Roland J., Answer to the Pelagians, IV: To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence (WSA I/26; ed. Rotelle, John E.; New York: New City Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

6 E.g. Rist, John M., ‘Augustine on Free Will and Predestination’, Journal of Theological Studies, ns 20: 420–47Google Scholar.

7 Version I is from perseu. 15.38; Version II is spread out over perseu. 22.58-61, amidst Augustine’s discussion, in which he cites and responds to Version I, the monks’ rendition; and Version III is from perseu. 22.58. The Latin is to be found at PL 45.1016 and 1029-30. An online English version (following the translation from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series) can be found at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1512.htm (accessed Feb.2016).

8 This is the terminology of C. S. Peirce, whose semiotics lie in the background of this article, interpreted with the help of Peter Ochs (see Ochs, Peter, Peirce, Pragmatism and the Logic of Scripture (Cambridge: CUP, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

9 The contrast drawn here elides a third possibility, in which the interpretation is both contextually creative and generic. We can think of abductions that work like this, such as Kepler's inference from particular positions of the planets to the elliptical path of their orbit. The positions of Mars, x and y, are signs of the points on an ellipse in the context of Kepler's hypothesis. The hypothesis is clearly creative, but as generic it allows other points of Mars's passage to be predicted. By contrast, as we will see, the particularity of sin requires both a creative and unique context of interpretation.

10 This is a slight oversimplification. New cases can generate new rules, changing the shape of the law and setting new precedent. But, as with Kepler's hypothesis, the contrast still holds: the rules generated are intentionally generic, while the depths of sin (we are arguing) cannot be exhausted in general rules.

11 To recall, this is a slight oversimplification insofar as generic interpretation can involve creative abduction, in which triadicity is no longer latent (see n. 10 for the example of Kepler's hypothesis). But the transformation we are after is to be distinguished from the latter, too.

12 This article was originally written as a plenary paper for the 2014 conference of the Society for the Study of Theology.