Words, Systems And Truth

Last updated on: April 12, 2021 at 3:06 am by Henry Karlson

Words, Systems And Truth 2021-04-12T03:06:07-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Matt: Connection Network Representing a System /flickr

Language is constantly evolving. Words change their meaning over time. This is why it is easy to misinterpret what an old text. We will tend to interpret it anachronistically, thinking the words used in it mean the same thing as they do today. Certainly, we do not do this with all ancient texts, nor with all the words which have changed their meaning, but we do it enough to cause us hermeneutical problems. While this can be, and is, often a problem in many fields of research, it is a special problem in theology. While the same words have different meanings based upon the time and place in which they are used, once the word has taken in a significant technical meaning, all previous use of the word can be, and often is, misread as if that technical meaning was intended, or others, only knowing the older meaning of the word, will not understand its new use and so end up rejecting texts which represent notions they otherwise believe.

Many theological debates are the result of this kind of misunderstanding. We can see this in the way the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria are read and interpreted by subsequent Christians. When people read him talking about “one incarnate nature” of Christ, some read it, not within the context of how he understood the word “nature,” but with the later, more developed, distinct meaning of “nature” which was distinguished from “person.” Others, however, read it in the way he did not differentiate between person and nature, and they are the ones who deny Christ as having two natures. If everyone understood how loose the terms “nature” and “person” were used during the time of St. Cyril, and before him (such as at Nicea), so that the two often were used to indicate the same meaning, then one can see why it would be wrong to read the later, distinct, technical use of the word “nature” into St. Cyril’s text. St. Cyril, in his own lifetime, came to understand the problem was not one of vocabulary but the meaning behind the vocabulary, so that he could find a unity of faith with those who used the words with different meanings.[1] Sadly, many of his readers did not appreciate this fact; instead of trying to follow the meaning intended by his writings, they reified his word choice, demanding people to use his particular phraseology of “one incarnate nature.” While those who follow Cyril often followed his own loose use of the term “nature,” so they could accept union with those following an Antiochian formulation, there were those who read Cyril anachronistically, who understood nature in its later, technical meaning, and so ended up denying Christ as having two natures after the incarnation. This means that some who rejected Chalcedon did so because they truly held a heretical interpretation of Cyril, but most did not read Cyril in this way.[2]

When dealing with theological statements, what matters is what was intended by declarations. The words are, to be sure, important, as they can help us discern the intended meaning, but we must understand that the words used only act as servants to that meaning. We must not become overly attached to the words themselves; that is, we must not tie down the higher truths of theology to words and then think that the way theology is done, the way faith is properly proclaimed, is by repeating the right words while rejecting the wrong words. If at one time and place, a particular word is condemned, we must find out why it was condemned. We can understand the condemnation of the word homoousios at the Council of Antioch around 269 by realizing it was condemned due to the way it was employed by Paul of Samosata, who used it in a way which denied the personal realities of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When Nicea used homoousios, Arians pointed out how the word had been condemned, but they ignored why it was condemned, for then they would realize that the word was used far differently by Paul of Samosata than it was used by those who established the Nicene Creed. This is why, after Nicea, when many of those who questioned the use of the word homoousios, examined how it was used at Nicea, came to accept Nicea and its use of homoousios, showing us that some of the contention after Nicea came from a misunderstanding instead of any substantial theological disagreement. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem, when he learned the actual meaning of Nicea, embraced its teachings, although at one time he was seen as rejecting the council itself.

What is true about word choice is also true about theological systems. The value of those systems lies in the meaning being pointed by them. Just as words cannot contain but only point to the transcendent truth, so systems, which rely upon words and technical definitions given to such words, cannot comprehend the transcendent truth but can only point to it. Various theological systems have developed over time. Each of them offers us ways to engage theological truths. They have helped us find some kind of explanation for the great mysteries of the faith, and in doing so, provided the basic framework which people needed in order to believe. In this regard, they have been of great service to the faith. The problem which we must face and reject is the confusion which some people have who think a particular theological system alone represents the truth and only those who follow it can therefore apprehend the truth. When this happens, the theological truth becomes lost, as the limited awareness and potential involved within any given system hinders those who absolutize such a system from searching for and experiencing the transcendent truth. And when two rival theological systems meet, if their adherents understand the limitations of their particular system, they can learn from and appreciate each other. But if they are strict adherents to their systems so that they confuse the truth as being only what is contained in their system, then they look to criticize and reject every other system, and so misread the other system in order to justify their criticism. This is often what is done in Catholic and Orthodox theological debates, such as in the ways some Thomists engage Palamas or in the way some Orthodox engage the filioque[3] Instead of trying to discern the greater meaning being pointed to by the other, the debate becomes centered on externals, and since the external details are different, never shall the two meet.

Theological debates are tricky. It must not be turned into a free for all. Not everything which can be asserted or intended is true. But the problem is that we must ascertain the intended meaning behind any given assertion. Sometimes, this is easy, as an author gives us enough material for us to understand what they mean by particular words. Often, this is not the case, and things are much more difficult, such as when we are trying to understand what an author meant when we only have a few fragments of their works to use to establish such an understanding. When we have only a limited ability to interpret a particular text or theological tradition, it is important for us to note the possible range of interpretations which can be had from a it, indicate which of them are acceptable, and which are not. Then, unless we have evidence to the contrary, we must assume that one of the acceptable meanings is what was intended, so as to give as charitable a reading as possible in order to sustain the love and respect which we should have as Christians for each other.

[1] See, for example, St. Cyril of Alexandria, “Letter 39” in Letters 1-50. Trans. John I. McEnerney (Washington, DC: CUA Press, 1987), 147-52.

[2] This is why, in modern ecumenical engagements, where we find this problem has been recognized, Christians finally are able to get beyond the issue of word choice and look to the meaning intended by both sides and find a common unity of faith, allowing for official statements indicating their common Christological understanding.

[3] For example, we find many Thomists falsely claiming that Palamas denied divine simplicity. If they studied Palamas, they would learn, far from denying divine simplicity, it is a foundation of his theological system. See, for example, Marcus Plested, “St. Gregory Palamas on Divine Simplicity” in Modern Theology vol. 35 no. 3 (2019): 508-521 and Mark K. Spencer, “The Flexibility of Divine Simplicity: Aquinas, Scotus and Palamas” in the International Philosophical Quarterly vol. 57 no. 2 (2017): 123-139.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Interpretation

Theological Reflection

Interpretation

Theological Reflection

Previous Post

April 11, 2021

Faith and Doubt

Next Post

April 14, 2021 Christians Should Learn From The Jews

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz