Unless we are in effect to abandon all attempts to talk about God as such (a form
of apophatic theology which Neville's position seems to favor), the «devious analogy» to which he refers is so devious that it is hard to distinguish it from equivocation or even fraudulent misrepresentation.
Not exact matches
It is absolutely committed to the negative doctrine that there is no divine revelation that delivers genuine knowledge
of God; it is absolutely committed to a radically
apophatic conception
of Christian
theology, so that no human language or concept, no product
of reason at all, can adequately express the mystery
of the divine; and it is absolutely committed to using
theology to articulate Christian doctrine given the needs and idiom
of the day.
I prefer the mystical
apophatic theology [knowing by unknowing] to the cataphatic
theology of the more popular orthodoxy.
Moreover
apophatic theology, based on the supposition that God can be known to us only in terms
of what He is not, is an integral part
of the Church's heritage.
Though it is a necessary corrective to en - sure the breadth
of our hope, an exclusively
apophatic religion or
theology would fail to connect us to our future.
Turner clearly knows his Marx, and he makes a compelling case that until Christian
theology recovers the insights
of the
apophatic tradition, with its exacting strictures on the ways we too easily talk about God, it will be justly subject to critiques like Marx's.
What is called
apophatic theology says that we can only say what God is not — «Neti, Neti», «not this, not that», as the famous Hindu text puts it God, as mystical
theology insists, can not be spoken
of, but must be experienced.
When we affirm something
of God (kataphatic
theology), we have subsequently and immediately to deny it (
apophatic theology) before we can dare assert it again on a new level.