By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou
I see the way in which empirical theologians (the saints) theologize and the way in which philosophical thinkers theologize and I understand the great difference between them. Empirical theologians are the Theoptic saints (Prophets, Apostles, Saints), while contemplative theologians are those who reason on dogmatic issues that refer to God, the Most Holy Theotokos, the Saints. And so the difference between them is abyssal.
I will cite two examples that will make this clear, and they refer to the way the Fathers theologized at the First Ecumenical Synod in contrast to the philosopher Arius.
1. Empirical Theologians
Saint John the Theologian, the Evangelist of Love, the beloved disciple of Christ, was on Mount Tabor, saw the glory of Christ, then followed Him to Golgotha, saw Him Risen, and received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
At the beginning of his Gospel he speaks of the Word of God, who is true God. He writes: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it” (John 1:1-5). His testimony is very clear. The Word of God always existed united with His Father and is God, all creation was made through Him and He is the life and the Light of men. God the Word is God and reveals Himself to men as Light.
He continues: “He was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and they themselves did not receive Him. But to those who received Him, He gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:9-12).
God the Word is Light and enlightens people. He writes further that Christ is the Word of God and Light, because he himself saw this divine Light, which is the Light of the Godhead, emanating from Christ, and those who are united with Him become children of God. He continues: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). God the Word, who was and is always united with God the Father, became incarnate and we have seen His glory, the Light of His divinity.
“And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace” (John 1:16). Union with God is Theoptia and this union gives man Grace, divine energy, and he is also God by Grace. Another disciple of Christ, the Apostle Peter, who, together with the Apostle and Evangelist John, was present at the great event of the Transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor, affirms that he became a witness of the “majesty of God” and contrasts this empirical event with the “cleverly devised myths” of the philosophers. He writes:
“For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, when such a voice came to Him by the Excellent Glory, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' And this voice we heard came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and a daystar rises in your hearts” (2 Pet. 1:16-19). And this apostolic word certainly defines what Orthodox theology is, since “holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21).
2. Contemplative Thinkers
This is Orthodox empirical theology, as recorded in the Symbol of Faith: “Light from light, true God from true God.”
In contrast to empirical theologians, contemplative theologians “theologize” philosophically, as we see in the heretic Arius.
Arius, following philosophical and contemplative principles, without having experience of Orthodox theology, maintained that the Son was created in time, “there was a time when he was not,” “there was only God (the Father) and thus he was the Word and Wisdom. When you wanted to create us, then you created someone and named him Word and Wisdom and Son, so that you could create us.” “God was not always a Father; but there was a time when God was alone and was not yet a Father; later He became a Father.” With these words he contradicts the Theoptic John the Theologian who says that “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”
He also maintained: The Son “is not of the same essence of the Father, for he is a creature and a thing made, and Christ is not true God, but became deified also by participation.” He also said: “The Word is both foreign and in all ways dissimilar to the essence and property of the Father, but of things that are begotten and created he is kin and is one of them... the Word is both foreign and alien and separate from the essence of God... but the Father is alien to the Son according to essence, because he is without beginning.” Here comes the Aristotelian philosophy about the essence of God and the Word as the other-substance of the Father is a creature.
Furthermore, he said that the Son "is not unchangeable, like the Father, but is changeable in nature, like creatures... changeable and mutable by nature." “The Son did not see the Father exactly, nor does the Word see the Father completely, nor does the Word know or comprehend the Father exactly... neither can the Son see or know the Father completely and accurately... and therefore the Son did not know His essence as He is... The Father is ineffable to the Son... But even the Son did not know His own essence.” Here too, Arius uses the philosophy of changeability, and that the Son does not know the essence of the Father.
3. The Prerequisites of Theology
From these examples it is seen how the Theoptic saints theologize and how the philosophers/contemplators theologize. The former (the Theoptics) have passed through purification (“blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”) and have reached theology, they are “those who suffer the divine and do not understand” (Saint Gregory Palamas), while the latter (the contemplators) philosophize to understand and do not suffer the divine and thus become heretics.
Therefore, the inviolable rule applies that in order for one to theologize, the necessary prerequisites are needed. The issue is: Will someone be an empirical theologian or will he follow the empirical theologians? There is no other way of theology in the Orthodox Church. If someone wants to reflect in a scholastic or Protestant or philosophical way, let him make it known from the beginning so that the Orthodox know that he is outside the Orthodox tradition and follows the heretics.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
