Linguistic confusion

Another way of stating the same basic point: the Arians, in arguing that “unbegotten” was a predicate of God the Father according to substance, were confused about a basic point of grammar: to predicate “not-X” of Y is not in fact to predicate anything at all of Y; it is only to foreclose the possibility of a particular predication, namely, “Y is X.” Saying, “Y is not-X” doesn’t then grant us any positive knowledge of Y whatsoever.

Augustine offers a helpful analogy: if someone tells you that a certain animal is not a quadruped, could you on that basis form any positive statements about that animal’s feet? No! (V.7.8) All you know about the animal is what it doesn’t have. Calling the Father “unbegotten” is like that: it is meaningful only as apophatic theology, and so it quite precisely is not a predication according to substance.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Arianism, Augustine, Holy Trinity, Language, Predication, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s