Against Nathan Porter: On Clement’s Negative Theology and Divine Attributes

Nathan Porter’s analysis of Clement of Alexandria’s theology overlooks the nuances in Clement’s approach to describing God’s attributes. Clement frequently uses negative descriptions to convey the ineffability and transcendence of God. Positive statements about God are always qualified to maintain the distinction between the Creator and the created order. This careful delineation is evident throughout Clement’s works and is crucial for understanding his theological framework.

Negative Descriptions of God

Clement often describes God using negative terms (via negativa) to emphasize what God is not, rather than what God is:

  • α-παθης (impassible)
  • α-γενητος (unbegotten)
  • α-γεννατος (uncreated)
  • α-γνωστος (unknowable)
  • α-θυμος (without anger)
  • α-μεταβλητος (unchangeable)

In Stromateis 5.13.83, Clement asserts, "everything that comes with a name is begotten [γεννητον], whether it wants it or not." This statement underlines the inherent limitation of human language in describing the divine, which is why Clement resorts to negative descriptions to avoid implying that God is a created being.

Qualified Positive Statements

When Clement does use positive descriptions, he invariably qualifies them to avoid any anthropomorphic misinterpretations:

  • Strom. 5.11.68: "Therefore let no one suppose that hands, and feet, and mouth, and eyes, and going in and coming out, and acts of anger and threats, are said by the Hebrews to be passions of God. By no means! But that some of these expressions are used more sacredly in an allegorical sense…we shall explain."
  • Strom. 7.7.37: "God is all ear and all eye - if one wants to use those terms."

These passages demonstrate Clement’s caution in attributing human characteristics to God. Instead, he uses allegory and metaphor to bridge the gap between human understanding and divine reality.

The Role of the Son

Clement maintains that while descriptors of God are inherently limited, the Son (the Logos) reveals the divine nature more comprehensively:

  • Strom. 5.6.34: "Hence the Son is said to be the Father's face, being the revealer of the Father's character [ιδιωματος] to the five senses by clothing himself with flesh."
  • Strom. 7.2.7: "All activity [ενεργεια] of the Lord has a reference [αναφοραν] to the Almighty, and the Son is - so to speak - the activity [ενεργεια] of the Father."

The Son serves as the mediator through whom divine attributes can be inferred and understood by humanity.

Practising εγκρατεια and Divine Assimilation

Clement equates practicing εγκρατεια (self-control) with following the commandments of the Teacher, which is integral to achieving divine assimilation:

  • Strom. 2.18.80: "Practising εγκρατεια [εγκρατευομενοι] we set out on a journey of purity toward piety and activity conforming to God, as far as possible in the likeness of the Lord, although in our nature we remain subject to death."

This practice allows for a dynamic relationship between the human and the divine, whereby human beings can partake in divine attributes through the Son without entirely conflating human and divine nature.

Rebutting the Rebuttal

Porter claims that Clement rebuts the notion of divine εγκρατεια in Strom. 2.18.81. However, Clement’s method often involves setting a thesis and then qualifying it within a broader context:

  • Strom. 4.22.138: Clement states that the gnostic in this world "is no longer continent [εγκρατης], but has reached a state of passionlessness [εν εξει απαθειας], waiting to put on the divine image."

Both Strom. 2.18.81 and Strom. 4.22.138 refer to εγκρατεια as a process, emphasizing human effort and concentration. These qualifications do not negate the multiple references to εγκρατεια as a fixed state achievable in this life, mirroring that of God. Rather, they provide a balanced view that acknowledges human limitations while still aspiring to divine perfection.

Conclusion

Clement’s nuanced approach to divine attributes and εγκρατεια reflects a sophisticated theological framework that balances human aspiration with divine transcendence. His use of negative descriptions, qualified positive statements, and the mediating role of the Son all contribute to a coherent vision of divine-human interaction. In this light, Porter’s interpretation appears overly simplistic, missing the depth and complexity of Clement’s thought. Understanding these subtleties is crucial for a more accurate interpretation of Clement’s theology and the potential Clementine origin of texts like Epistle 366.

Comments

Popular Posts