Can We Truly Know God—or Only Believe in Mystery?

Theology
1
Infinite God, Finite Mind: Philosophical Reflections on the Accessibility of Christ’s Divine Nature

Can We Truly Know God or Only Believe in Mystery
Can We Truly Know God or Only Believe in Mystery1200×630 59.5 KB

Can finite minds truly grasp the divine nature of Christ, or is God ultimately unknowable? This thought-provoking discussion explores the tension between mystery and revelation, reason and faith.

#KnowableGod #IncarnationDebate #christianforums #crosswalkforums #forums #crosswalk #faithcommunity #faithforums

Theology
From my recent discussion with Johann, I wanted to ask the core question from my heart:
@SincereSeeker @KPuff @Johann @TheologyNerd @Bruce_Leiter @Dr_S @Bruce_leiter, @Soul and others are welcome to help me with this problem
The question of whether the infinite God—especially revealed in Christ—can be truly known by finite human minds is far from settled. Some argue that the divine nature is ultimately incomprehensible, insisting that God’s essence is forever mystery beyond human reason. This apophatic (negative) theology holds that attempts to fully grasp God risk idolatry or reductionism.

Others claim that through the Incarnation and Scripture, Christ makes God knowable and accessible—that human reason and experience can genuinely encounter and understand God’s nature, at least in part. This cataphatic (positive) view emphasizes revelation, reason, and personal relationship.

But can these two be reconciled? Or is this tension irreconcilable, leaving believers stuck between blind faith and rational skepticism?

Philosophers like Immanuel Kant have famously argued that the infinite is beyond human cognition, making theological claims about God meaningless speculation. On the other hand, theologians like Thomas Aquinas assert that while God’s essence is infinite, we can have true, though limited, knowledge of Him through reason and faith.

In contemporary theology, some see the doctrine of Christ’s divinity as an outdated metaphysical idea, incompatible with modern science and philosophy. Others fiercely defend it as the core truth of Christianity that demands recognition.

So, the question remains:
Is Christ’s divine nature truly accessible to our finite minds, or are we chasing a theological mirage?

  • Is the doctrine of the Incarnation intellectually defensible in the 21st century, or is it just religious myth?
  • Does insisting on the “mystery” of God abdicate responsibility for rational inquiry?
  • Can faith survive if Christ is ultimately incomprehensible? Or does true faith require some degree of comprehension?
2

Your framing creates a false dilemma and collapses under the weight of its own dichotomies. The Church Fathers did not leave us suspended between apophatic despair and cataphatic arrogance. They held both together in the tension of divine transcendence and Incarnational revelation. The mystery is not abolition of knowledge, but its sanctification. The unknowable God has spoken, and He has taken on flesh. Not in dialectic, but in cruciform self-revelation.

Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, affirms God’s incomprehensibility yet insists that the Incarnation makes Him knowable:
“No one has yet breathed all of God; but it is equally impious to say we have no knowledge, as it is to claim total comprehension” (Or. 28.17).
The same Gregory says, “What has not been assumed has not been healed” (Ep. 101), which hinges on Christ’s full humanity and full divinity, not as abstract metaphysics but as the grammar of salvation.

Irenaeus of Lyons anchors the knowledge of God not in speculation but in history:
“The invisible Father becomes visible through the Son” (Adv. Haer. 4.6.6).
And again, “Through His Word, God showed Himself to all… those who see the Son also see the Father” (cf. John 14:9).
Here is no Kantian abyss, but a crucified bridge.

Athanasius contra mundum rebuked the Arians not merely for poor Christology, but for denying the very possibility of knowing God:
“It is more godly and accurate to signify God from the Son and call Him Father, than to name Him from His works only and call Him Unoriginate” (Contra Arianos 1.34).
The Son exegetes the Father (John 1:18, ἐξηγήσατο) and to deny this is to veil God once more.

Augustine in De Trinitate declares, “We are not speaking about God as He is in Himself, but as He has revealed Himself to us” (Bk 8.2.4).
He does not collapse into apophatic skepticism, but warns against arrogant rationalism unmoored from revelation.
In Christ, says Augustine, God is simultaneously veiled and revealed—latet simul et patet.

Cyril of Jerusalem drives the point home: “The Father is not known without the Son; for He is known through the Son” (Catechetical Lectures 11.3).
Revelation is not illusion. God has not tricked the world with a mask. He has sent His Son to be the image of the invisible God (Col 1:15), and that image is bloodied and risen.

The Cappadocians, in response to Eunomian rationalism, insisted that while God’s essence remains unknown, His energies and self-revelation are real, intimate, saving. Basil the Great in Contra Eunomium says, “We know our God from His energies, not from His essence” (1.14), which safeguards mystery without surrendering communion.

So the question is not whether we know the divine nature completely, no Father claimed that. The question is whether God has truly made Himself known, and the answer is the Incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ Jesus. There is no “theological mirage,” only theological pride or despair. God is not a problem to be solved, but a Person to be known—on His terms, by His Spirit, through His Son. Christus revelatus est, ut Deus cognoscatur.

You do not stand between blind faith and cold reason. You stand before a torn veil. Enter.

J.

3

Yes what u said is true but we have to consider that as well as

Is philosophical theology a help or hindrance in understanding Christ?

Are contemporary theologians selling out Christian doctrine to modern skepticism?

4

I once heard it said that if you can fit your God into a box…

… Your God is too small.

1 Like
5

Correct, if YHWH can fit into my three pound brain He is not worthy of my worship.

J.

6

What I gave you is Scripture and yes, philosophical reasoning’s is definitely a hindrance in understanding the Messiah.

J.

7

I see :saluting_face:
I know there are mysteries, as admin said, we shld prevent making a box but we shld at the same time be ready to explore and question, we ourselves do not know our capabilities so I wanted to have a theological-philosophical discusscion on this because some immuanel kant said that
God infinite is beyond human cognition
and some like Thomas Aquinas said
God’s essence is infinite, we can have true, though limited, knowledge of Him through reason and faith.
So here hinges my discussion…

8

@Samuel_23, it might be advisable to walk before we run. Can one man “know” another? Can the fininte mind know the finite mind of another? I feel like I know you, to some degree, but I am sure there are many ways in which I don’t know you. I assume, if we were to spend much time together, I would come to know you better, but I doubt I would ever know you fully. If I, a fininte man admit I can never fully know the mind of another finite man, although I may know him to some degree, why would I contend with men over my ability to know the infinite God fully?. Does God ever instruct us, or encourage us to know him fully? No, but He says:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.Isaiah 55:8-9 (NKJV)

I’m sure, knowing you as I do, this is far too simplistic for you, as you present yourself as one who digs for deep questions to be answered, but to me, this simple answer suffices. God, in his mercy has created a man that can know Him, to some degree, and had made Himself known to His creation, so that Creator and creaton can enjoy fellowship in the beauty of His Holiness.

Much Love
KP

1 Like
9

@Samuel_23, you’ve framed the tension well, but let’s cut through the philosophical incense and get down to biblical brass tacks. Because this isn’t just some armchair riddle for pipe-smoking academics in dim libraries. It’s the eternal question of whether the God who is can actually be known.

You said it: there are two camps. Those who shout “Mystery!” till their theology fogs over like a bad Instagram filter, and those who pretend they’ve got God dissected like a frog in a lab. And both sides miss the miracle. Because God isn’t unknowable or fully knowable. He’s revealed.

Deuteronomy 29:29 lays it out: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever.” Mystery isn’t a cop-out. It’s a boundary marker. We don’t know everything, but we’re not left with nothing. The God who thunders from Sinai also whispers in Scripture. And He didn’t just leave us texts. He put on flesh.

John 1:18 is the mic drop: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God… has made Him known.” That’s not vague mysticism. That’s incarnation. That’s revelation in sandals. Jesus didn’t come to hint at divinity. He came to show it, speak it, and bleed it into human history.

And yes, finite minds can know infinite truth. Not exhaustively, but truly. Just like a child can genuinely know their parent without comprehending their biology, salary, or psychological depth. God doesn’t demand omniscience to know Him. He demands faith. And faith that comes by hearing the Word (Romans 10:17), not by guessing at the fog.

You brought up Kant. Good. But Kant’s wall between noumena and phenomena crumbles at Bethlehem. Because God didn’t stay behind the curtain. He tore it (Matthew 27:51). Christ is the knowable God. Colossians 1:15 calls Him “the image of the invisible God.” Not a metaphor. Not a symbol. A Person.

The doctrine of the Incarnation isn’t just defensible. It’s essential. If Christ isn’t God in the flesh, then we’re left with moralism, not salvation. A myth can’t bleed. A metaphor doesn’t rise. But a risen Christ? That’s not mystery. That’s manifest glory.

So yes. God is infinite. Yes. Our minds are finite. But no. We are not blind wanderers in theological fog. The Light has come into the world (John 1:9), and if we don’t see Him, it’s not because He’s hiding. It’s because we love the darkness more than the Light (John 3:19).

You asked if faith can survive if Christ is incomprehensible. Let me flip it. Can faith even exist if Christ is unknowable? The biblical answer is no. Faith isn’t a leap into the void. It’s trust in the One who has made Himself known. And His name is Jesus.

Stay grounded. Stay sharp. Stay in the Word.

—Sincere Seeker. Scripturally savage. Here for the Truth.

1 Like
10

7 posts were merged into an existing topic: Jesus, the Anointed Man—Not God?

11

I see what ur saying Mac, but what are our boundaries, have we reached it?

12

From my side, there are two views
@Johann @SincereSeeker @Kpuff
Apophatic Theology:
Apophatic theology, rooted in early Christian thought, emphasizes that God’s divine nature transcends human comprehension. St. Gregory of Nazianzus articulates this:
“No one has yet breathed all of God; but it is equally impious to say we have no knowledge, as it is to claim total comprehension”
This perspective warns against reducing God to human categories which can lead to idolatry or oversimplification.
For Gregory, Christ’s divine nature as part of the Triune God, exceeds finite minds, yet He invites awe and humility rather than despair.
In Catholicism, Pseudo-Dinoysius the Areopagite stresses that God is know by negating human concepts, He is “beyond being” and “beyond divinity”. Protestant mystic traditions such as those of Meister Eckhart echo this, urging believers to approach God through a “cloud of unknowing”.
Cataphatic Theology:
Cataphatic theology counters that God makes Himself knowable particularly through the Incarnation. Irenaeus of Lyons declares, “The invisible Father becomes visible throguh the Son” citing John 14:9. For Irenaeus, Christ’s life, death and resurrection reveal God’s nature as love and self-giving, making the divine accessible to human understanding. Athanasius, in On the Incarnation argues that Christ’s divinity is essential for salvation:
“He became man that we might become divine”
The incarnation bridges the infinite and finite, allowing humans to know God through Christ’s human nature
Catholic theology, through Thomas Aquinas supports this.
In Summa Theologiae, Aquinas proposes that we know God analogically, terms like “goodness” or “love” apply to God in a way that reflects true but limited knowledge.
Karl Barth emphasize Christ as God’s definitive revelation:
“God is known through God alone, and this revelation is Jesus Christ”
For Barth, Christ’s divine nature is not an abstract concept, but a personal encounter, knowable through faith.
My Problem: The Tension
The Tension, between apophatic and cataphatic approaches is evident in Augustine’s De Trinitate:
“We are not speaking about God as He is in Himself, but as He has revealed Himself to us”
Christ is both “veiled and revealed” a paradox that holds mystery and knowability together. Cyril of Jerusalem reinforces this:
“The Father is not know without the Son; for He is known through the Son”
Christ, as “the image of the invisible God” makes God’s nature accessible, yet His divinity retains an inexhaustible depth/.
This tension is not a flaw but a dynamic feature of Christian theology. Apophatic thinkers caution against overconfidence while cataphatic voices affirm that God’s self-disclosure in Christ is real and transformative
The question remains:
can these be reconciled, or does the tension leave believers caught between unknowable mystery and confident revelation?
Christian engagement with Kant:
Philosophically, the question engages the limits of human cognition in relation to the infinite. Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Pure Reason, argued that human knowledge is confined to phenomena-
things as they appear within our sensory and conceptual frameworks.
The noumenal (God’s essence) is beyond cognition, suggesting that claims about Christ’s divine nature are inherently limited. From a Christian perspective, however, Kant’s framework can be reframed. While agreeing that God’s essence transcends human categories, Christian thinkers argues that God’s self-revelation in Christ overcomes this barrier.
Thomas Aquinas offers a philosophical bridge through his doctrine of analogy, which aligns with the Christian Theology. We can know God through attributes revealed in Christ, not as identical to human concepts but as analogous, grounded in divine initiative. This counters Kant’s restrictions but suggesting that revelation provides a pathway to true knowledge, even if partial.
Modern Christian Philosophers like Alvin Plantinga build on this. Plantinga argues that faith in Christ’s divinity is rational, rooted in the “internal instigation of the Holy Spirit” and historical testimony of the Gospels.
The Incarnation, as a divine act, enables humans to know God’s nature in a way that transcends Kantian limits, not through speculative reason, but through relational encounter.

13

Your framework, while intellectually elegant, falters under Scripture’s piercing clarity. The tension you describe between apophatic mystery and cataphatic revelation is not unresolved in the biblical witness—it is resolved in the person of Jesus Christ. The God who dwells in unapproachable light has approached. The unknowable has made Himself known, not in abstractions, but in blood and body, in voice and action, in cross and resurrection.

You appeal to Gregory of Nazianzus and Dionysius the Areopagite, but Scripture gives us no “cloud of unknowing” when it comes to God’s redemptive self-disclosure. It is not speculative ascent that unveils the divine, but God’s descent. As John 1:18 declares:

“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known” (ἐξηγήσατο).

The verb ἐξηγέομαι is the root of “exegesis”—Christ exegetes the Father. There is no ambiguity. The invisible God is interpreted to us by the incarnate Son. The divine is no longer behind a veil. The Incarnation is not a partial hint—it is the full self-revelation of God.

Paul affirms this in Colossians 1:15–19:

“He is the image (εἰκών) of the invisible God … in Him all the fullness (πλήρωμα) of deity was pleased to dwell.”

Again in Colossians 2:9:

“In Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.”

The Greek does not permit apophatic escape. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα—all the fullness, not a shadow, not a pointer, but God in flesh. This is not philosophical analogy. This is ontological Incarnation. The transcendent One has entered space and time—not as abstraction, but as historical person.

You cite Augustine’s De Trinitate and suggest Christ is “veiled and revealed,” yet you miss his conclusion: that the Trinity is knowable through Christ’s redemptive work, even if not exhaustively. Augustine’s own words refute mystic pessimism:

“Let us believe so that we may know, for unless you believe, you will not understand” (Credo ut intelligam, Tract. in Joann. 29.6).

Faith does not suspend knowledge. It initiates it. To see Christ is to see God (John 14:9). The problem is not divine concealment—it is human unbelief.

You attempt to synthesize Kant with Aquinas, but the New Testament breaks Kant’s ceiling. It does not leave us imprisoned within phenomena. Hebrews 1:1–3 obliterates the noumenal barrier:

“In these last days, God has spoken to us by His Son … He is the radiance (ἀπαύγασμα) of the glory of God and the exact imprint (χαρακτὴρ) of His nature (ὑποστάσεως).”

Not a projection. Not a metaphor. The exact imprint. The radiance. The visible unveiling of the invisible. There is no veil left to pierce. The Son has spoken. God is not guessed at. He is proclaimed, known, revealed.

Furthermore, 2 Corinthians 4:6 removes the last doubt:

“For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge (γνῶσις) of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

This is not negative theology. This is cataphatic certainty. Not mere analogy. Not clouded metaphor. Face-to-face knowledge in the face of Christ.

Yes, the essence of God is infinite and incomprehensible in itself, but God has chosen to make Himself truly, relationally, personally known in Christ. The apophatic impulse is a good servant when it humbles the proud, but a terrible master when it muzzles the gospel.

Your tension between unknowable mystery and confident revelation is not tension in Scripture. It is resolved in the cross. There, the unknowable God bled. There, divine wrath and divine love embraced. There, heaven opened to earth. And the veil was torn—not just in the temple, but in theological speculation.

Christ crucified is not a philosophical bridge. He is the unveiled God.
Worship Him. Know Him. Speak of Him. Proclaim Him.
“This is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent” (John 17:3).

1 Like
14

@Johann @Kpuff @SincereSeeker
Although im a Christian, I read many skeptical books which argues abt this and this is what the skeptic thinks, because we need to see both sides of the argument, then only will our faith in God be stronger.
Philosphical Limits of Cognitions:
Influenced by Immaneuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, skeptics assert that human cognition is confied to pheomena-
things as they appear within sensory and conceptual frameworks.
The divine, as noumenal (beyond human categories) is inherently unknowable. Claims about Christ’s divine nature, such as the hypostatic union, are speculative, exceeding what reason can verify. Even if God exists, His essence cannot be apprehended, rendering assertions about Christ’s divinity metaphysical overreach,
Metaphyscial Incoherence
Some Skeptics, some of my friends, and some liberal theologians like John Hick, argue that the Incaration is philosophically problematic, and even I faced this problem in my initial study.
How can the infinite coexist with the finite in one person, without compromising either nature?
This seems to defy logical consistency.
Historical Reliability
Skeptic question the historical reliability of claims about Christ’s divinity. While acknowledging the NT’s accounts, tehy argue that these texts, written decades after Jesus’ life, reflect theological embellishments rather than historical facts. The rapid spread of Christianity and martyrs’ testimony are explained as sociological phenomena
“fervent belief in a charismatic leader, not evidence of divine nature”
Without empirical proof, claims about Christ’s divinity remain speculative.
Modern Irrelevance
Some like skeptics within Christian circles, such as some progressive theologians aruge that the doctrine of Christ’s divintiy is outdated. it relies on pre-modern metaphysical assumptions incompatibile with a scientific worldview. Concepts like “divine nature” or “Incarnation” are seen a symbolic , better understood as expression of human aspirations for transcendence rather than literal truths.
Faith should focus on Jesus’s ethical teachings, not metaphysical claims.
Note, many skeptics, and some of my skeptic friends are hesitant to read the bible and accept it, so we need to counter it based on their arguments and sources.

15

The Divine Essence is utterly unknowable; God in His Being is unfathomable, incomprehensible, and ineffable. It is only by revelation that we can know God.

St. Paul, however, reminds us that even though God’s invisible power and wisdom is on full display through the created order, the human response to this isn’t to worship the Creator, but rather results in idolatry, they worshiped the creature rather than the Creator; and our own brokenness leads us to following our distorted passions. Idolatry and the passions, not communion with and love of God is the human response to beholding the invisible power of God.

This invisible power of God is part of what Lutherans refer to as the Deus Absconditus. The Hidden God–God hidden behind the veil of His own invisible glory and power. In Lutheran terminology it also refers to God hidden behind the veil of the Law. This Deus Absconditus is in contrast with what is called Deus Revelatus; God in His revelation, specifically and poignantly: God revealed in the Incarnation. Thus we do not know God in His Hiddenness, we instead know God in His Revelation–in the Incarnate Person of Jesus Christ. To put it another way, we do not know God in His Invisibleness, but in His Visibleness–it is the visible, enfleshed, and (in particular) suffering Christ that we meet and know God.

We come to know the Father because He is revealed and made known through His Son who became flesh. “No one at anytime has seen God, but God the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made Him known” (John 1:18). The Son is the “express image” of the Father’s Hypostasis, as the author of Hebrews tells us. The Father is known through His Son, “No one can come to the Father but by Me”.

This is the consistent language of the New Testament: We know God through Jesus, we know God in Jesus, it is Jesus where we meet and know God. In Jesus we are reconciled to the Father, in Jesus we meet, encounter, and know the Father. Because the Father is Jesus’ Father, and He is our Father because we are in Christ.

The Unknowable God is made Knowable. We do not know the Essence; but we know Him. We will never know or comprehend the Divine Being; the Holy and Divine Trinity will always remain Ineffable and Profound Mystery–and yet by our participation in Christ by God’s grace we behold, know, and are brought into beautiful communion with the Trinity; so that in Christ I behold His Father as my Father also, and therefore can pray the Prayer with the Lord, “Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy Name”. And the Holy Spirit, God’s Spirit, is in me, and in me unites me to Christ, and in Christ I can cry out, “Abba! Father!”. So that in Christ I am truly in Him, and come to know His Father as my Father, and the power and life of the Spirit is at work in me–and so I am both now and in the future hope a partaker of God the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity.

To appropriate a bit from Gregory Palamas, I do not know God in His Essence, I know God in His Grace. While Lutheranism isn’t Palamist, it is my experience that Lutheran engagement in the historic East-West debates of which Palamas and Barlaam were involved in are arguably more nuanced without identifying strictly with either. We do not know God in His Essence, we know God by Grace Alone in Christ Alone. Where Grace is understood not as a “created energy” a la the Latin view, but fundamentally as God Himself disposed toward us in Christ; Grace is not a created energy or substance, but is God Himself in His Uncreated Energies toward us–which I’m phrasing in a quasi-Palamist way, but I do not want to give the impression that it is strictly speaking, Palamist. But I do think it is a helpful way to talk about this.

17

I think that John Calvin’s rule is the best: “Go as far as the Bible goes. Then, stop.” I would add, “Then, believe the mysteries of the Trinity and Jesus’ full humanity and full deity.”

1 Like
18

@Johann
At the apex of Christian theology, the Incarnation is the fulcrum of divine-human encounter, where the transcedent God enters history to make Himself known. Your citation of John 1:18
“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God…He has made Him known” establishes Christ as the exegesis of the Father, not a partial hint but the definitive revelation.
the Greek ἐξηγήσατο implies a complete interpretation, as you note, rendering God accessible in the flesh of Jesus. Colossians `:15-19 and 2:9, “in Him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily” further assert that Christ embodies the totality of God’s nature, not a shadow. Hebrews 1:3’s “exact imprint” and “radiance of God’s glory” confirm this:
Christ is the precise expression of God’s being, collapsing any distance between the divine and human.
Yet, the cataphatic clarity you champion coexists with an apophatic depth, that does not negate but exalts revelation.
Gregory of Nazianzus, balances this
“No one has yet breathed all of God, but it is equally impious to say we have no knowledge, as it is to claim total comprehension”
The Incarnation resolves the tension by making God knowable, face to face as 2 Cor 4:6 declares, but the infinite nature go God ensures that this knowledge is not exhaustive.
The “fullness” in Colossians does not mean human mastery, but it signifies divine condescension, where the infinite assumes finitude without ceasing to be infinite.
The Cross, as you proclaim, is the locus of this resolution. The torn veil symbolises open access to God, where divine wrath and love embrace as you beautifully state. John 17:3 “This is eternal life; that they know You.. and Jesus Christ” ties knowing God to salvation, not as a theoretical construct but as a relational encounter.
yet, the apophatic impulse as Pseudo-Dionysius articulates, reminds us that this knowledge plunges us into “divine darkness” not ignorance, but a superabundant presence that transcends human categories. Christ’s revelation is definitive but it opens into the infinite, where theology becomes doxology.
Philosophically, your rejection of Kant’s noumenal-phenomenal divide is incisive. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason confines knowledge to phenomena, deeming the divine noumenal and unknowable.
Christian thought, as reflected in the Fathers transcends this barrier through the metaphysics of the Incarnation. St. Maximus the Confessor in Ambigua presents Christ as the cosmic logos, uniting uncreated and created in His hypostasis. This is not a phenomenon within Kant’s framework but a divine act that redefines ontology, enabling knowledge of the divine through participation rather than speculation.
Engaging phenomenology, Jean- Luc Marion’s concept of the “saturated phenomenon” is interesting, and u will like it @Johann
Christ’s divine nature overwhelms human cognition- not with absence but with excess.
The “face of Jesus Christ” in 2 Cor 4:6 is not a concept to be grasped but a presence that saturates perception, as your citation may suggest.
This aligns with Thomas Aquinas’s doctrine if analogy, where terms like “love” or “being” apply to God analogically, grounded in revelation. yet, at this philosophical apex, analogy gives way to encounter.
Christ’s character (Heb 1:3) is not a mere representation but the divine reality itself, accessible through faith.
Your invocation of Augustine’s credo ut intelligam is pivotal. Father is not a suspension of reason, but its transfiguration, enabling intellect to apprehend what reason alone cannot. This counter’s Kant’s limit by positing divine initiative:
God’s self-revelation in Christ bypasses the noumenal barrier as Heb 1:1-3 declares.
Philosophically, this not irrational but supra-rational, where the finite mind meets the infinite in a relational act of knowing.
Your insistence on Christ as the unveiled God is the heartbeat of Christian faith. Col 2:9 and John 14:9 affirm that the Incarnation is not partial disclosure but the full presence of God. Your rejection of a cloud of unknowing rightly ehphasizes that Christ removes ambiguity as St. Cyril of Jerusalem affirms that:
“The Father is not known without the Son”
Yet, the apophatic tradition (to which i affirm) does not muzzle the gospel, but guards its transcedence.
Dinoysius’s “divine darkness” is not a denial of knowledge but an affirmation of God’s infinity, where revelation leads to communion, not comprehension. Your Scriptural citation, John 1:18 and Col 1:15-19, Heb 1:3 proclaims Christ’s definitive revelation but the infinite depth of God’s nature ensures that this knowledge is dynamic, drawing us into eternal life. The torn veil invites us to know God, but the mystery of His essence ensures that this knowing is a ceaseless journey to love.

19

Your rhetoric is polished but your framework collapses because it confuses the mystery of God with the unknowability of God, and it mistakes transcendence for inaccessibility. Scripture does not describe revelation as an infinite plunge into divine darkness, but as a piercing light through the veil. The “cloud of unknowing” you defend is not a biblical cloud but a philosophical fog cast over clear apostolic proclamation.

John 1:18 does not say the Son gave us a mystical glimpse—it says ἐξηγήσατο, He fully declared the Father. Not as metaphor, not as philosophical tension, but as clarity in flesh. To say Christ reveals God and yet leaves Him hidden is a contradiction. The Incarnation is not dialectical—it is decisive.

Colossians 2:9 does not say some divine attributes dwell in Christ but πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα—all the fullness of the Godhead. That is not a dynamic process of approximation. That is definitive self-revelation. Hebrews 1:3 is not open-ended mysticism. Christ is the χαρακτήρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, the exact imprint of the Father’s substance, not a doorway to transcendental mystery but the substance itself in visible form.

You invoke Gregory of Nazianzus, but his own Christology affirms that God has made Himself known in Christ for the purpose of salvation. The unknowable essence does not paralyze knowing—it magnifies the grace of revelation. Gregory never used apophaticism to relativize the gospel.

Pseudo-Dionysius and the “divine darkness” are post-apostolic imports, not apostolic doctrine. There is no New Testament passage that invites believers into a mystical void. Instead, 2 Corinthians 4:6 speaks of the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, not in darkness, not in saturation, but in face-to-face encounter.

Your appeal to Maximus and Marion is metaphysical embellishment. Paul didn’t preach saturated phenomenology. He preached Christ crucified. The cross is not an excess of perception—it is the definitive act by which God is known. As Jesus said, “When I am lifted up, I will draw all men to Myself” (John 12:32), not into Dionysian paradox but into visible mercy.

You affirm Augustine’s credo ut intelligam, but you do not follow his direction. Augustine said, “Let us believe that we may understand,” not “Let us negate understanding so that we may float in mystery.” Faith opens the door to real knowledge, not eternal approximation. John 17:3 defines eternal life as knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ—not aspiring toward Him, not approximating His being, but knowing Him in a saving, relational, and revealed way.

You speak of tension, but Scripture speaks of torn veils. You speak of transcendence that veils, but the gospel proclaims a God who descended to be seen, heard, touched (1 John 1:1–3). The apostles do not lead us into apophatic labyrinths but testify with clarity:

“We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14).
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Ephesians 1:7).
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19).

That is not mystery echoing into mystery. That is revelation grounded in incarnation, blood, and resurrection.

Christ did not come to initiate a journey into divine unknowability. He came to make the Father known, to show us the way, and to open access once and for all. The veil is torn. The door is open. The gospel is not a mystical ascent. It is a crucified descent. And it is enough.

J.

1 Like
20

While I lean on apophatic side im open to both, cataphatic and apophatic. It will take me some time to read ur post, so I will just read ur overall posts on this topic, I need some time to sink in what u have told.

21

@TheologyNerd, nice insight
At the pinnacle of Christian theology, the Incarnation is the fulcrum where the unknowable God becomes knowable, not as a dissolution of mystery but as its transfiguration. Your appeal to John 1:18
“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God..He has made Him known”
establishes Christ as the exegesis of the Father, the visible revelation of the invisible. Hebrews 1:3’s “exact imprint” and “radiance of God’s glory” further affirm that Christ embodies the divine hypostasis, making God accessible in His person. Col 1:15-19’s “all the fullness of deity” dwelling bodily underscores this:
Christ is not a partial disclosure, but the full presence of God in human form.
Yet, the apophatic tradition, as articulated by Gregory of Nazianzus, insists on a nuanced balance:
“No one has yet breathed all of God; but is equally impious to say we have no knowledge, as it is to claim total comprehension”
The Deus Absconditus, as your interlocutor describes, reflects the divine essence’s ineffability-
God’s being is “unfathomable, incomprehensible” as Pseudo-Dionysius echoes in Mystical Theology, where the divine darkness signifies not absence but superabundant presence. The Incarnation does not negate this mytery but channels it:
Christ as Deus Revelatus, makes the Father known, yet His essence remains an infinite abyss. The torn veil unveils God, but the mystery of His being invites endless communion, not exhaustive comprehension.
Your Lutheran emphasis on knowing God “in Christ alone” aligns this but their quasi-palamite framing of grace as “God Himself in His uncreated energies” elevates the discussion.
While from what I know is that Lutheranism avoids strict Palamism, their nod to uncreated energies resonates with St. Gregory Palamas’s distinction in Triads, that we know God not in His essence but through His energies, @TheologyNerd, i totally agree here. His actions in creation, supremely manifest in Christ’s life, death and resurrection. This theological apex sees the Incarnation as the locus where grace, as God’s self-giving presence enables participation in the Trinity, fulfilling John 17:3 “This is eternal life: that they know You..and Jesus Christ” (I’m crying)
Jean-Luc Marion’s phenomenology of the “saturated phenomenon” further illustrates this that Christ’s divine nature overwhelms human cognition, not with absence but with excess as 2 Cor 4:6’s “knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” suggests. This is not Kantian phenomenon but a divine presence accessible through faith’s relational act. Thomas Aquinas’s doctrine of analogy complements this that terms like “love” and " being" apply to God analogically, grounded in revelation, but at this philosophical apex, analogy gives way to participation. I had written this in answer to Johann, but after reading Johann’s post thoroughly, i will integrate the necessary changes.
The Deus Revelatus is not a concept to be grasped but a Person to be met, which lines with Augustine’s credo ut intelligam: faith opens the intellect to the divine
From what i feel, that the Lutheran distinction between Deus Absconditus and Deus Revelatus finds philosophical resonance in Martin Heidegger concept of aletheia, reinterpreted christologically. Christ is the unveiling of God’s truth, not as a static essence but as a dynamic event of presence. Yet the apophatic ensures that this unveiling doesnt exhaust the divine; as Dionysius’s “divine darkness” suggests, God’s essence transcends even the most profound revelation, inviting a knowledge that is relational, not possessive.
Deus Revelatus, God known in the “visible, enfleshed, suffering Christ” is a clarion call. John 1:18, Heb 1:3 and John 14:6 affirm that Christ is the sole path to knowing the Father. THeir point that human brokenness leads to idolatry, rather than worship underscores the necessity of Christ’s revelation: without the Incarnation, the Deus Absconditus remains veiled by our distorted passions. The suffering Christ, as Lutheran theology stresses, reveals God’s heart, His love and solidarity in the cross, making knowledge personal and salvific.
The quasi-Palamite framing of grace as “God Himself disposed toward us in Christ” aligns with the East’s essence-energies distinction, i see it, while it doesn’t fully endorse Palamism, but this one statement u made is extremely crucial.
Yet,
The Apophatic tradition, at its theological and philosohical zenith prevent this knowledge from becoming anthropocentric. St. Greogory of Nazianzus’s caution against “total comprehension” and Dinysius’s plunge into divine darkness ensure that Christ’s revelation, while definitive, opens into the infinite.
The Deus Absconditus, is not a barrier but a depth:
The Father known in Christ remains the ineffable Trinity whose mystery sustains awe
St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes that
“The Father is not known without the Son”
But the Son’s revelation invites us into a mystery that is relational, not reductive.
Note: Changes are yet to be done.
Im an Orthodox, and accept both Cataphatic and Apophatic, but i lean more on Apophatic side because i recognize that God is ultimately unknowable in essence.
I always remember this quote from St. Issac the Syrian, which is deep, and touches my heart. St. Issac the Syrian said:
“The closer a man approaches God, the more he sees himself as unworthy.”
Why? Because the infinite love of God is not only real, it’s overwhelming.