BLACK LION
Academy
Academy
Dialogue and the art of questioning is itself an acknowledgement of difference, a movement toward understanding the Other who sees from a different horizon, a different perspective.
This series will address three topics: defining apophatic theology through a brief historical approach, the place of apophatic theology in systematic theology, and a brief reception of apophatic theology in modern discourse.
This article does not intend to tackle all the issues with penal substitutionary atonement nor its variations, but to relay some insights from Saints Athanasius and Irenaeus regarding the relationship between God and justice.
I propose that Lossky, despite all of his optimism that Pseudo-Dionysius’ apophaticism reinforces the claims of Eastern Orthodox theology, overlooks the implication that this type of apophatic discourse must also render the claims of Eastern Orthodox theology as subject to scrutiny, with the Monarchy of the Father under view in this article.
What I propose is a “non-violent” approach to Anselm’s theology of atonement, which interprets satisfaction theory (1) in its religious (rather than feudal) context and (2) within Anselm’s broader theology.
If Augustine is to be fully recovered in modern theological discussions, then his emphasis on the theosis of humanity must be taken into consideration.
One should not read the works of the Church Fathers alone or without commentary. Those who approach the writings of the Church Fathers should be careful not to fall into the methodology of an uncritical sola patristica.
.png)