Interpreting Words About God: Part 2 of 5, Accommodative Truth

• Monday) "Test case: Genesis": Authorial use of anthropomorphic language.
• Today) "Bugs on a quarter": A very brief introduction for the following two days that will discuss Creator-creature relationship, the archetypal-ectypal distinction, and univocal vs. equivocal vs. analogous interpretation. We will explore the power of accommodative truth.
• Wednesday) "God is not man, man is not God": The Creator-creature ontological relationship and the archetypal-ectypal distinction.
• Thursday) "Humbling ourselves before The Transcendent": The argument advocating use of only analogous interpretation for ALL words attributed to what God does and about who He is.
• Friday) "An answer to the critics of analogy and closing remarks": That pretty much sums it up.

Today I will write further on analogical language which I mentioned briefly in post number one.  I will begin explaining how this relates to the terms that speak about God like "repent" or “regret” or even "love" and "wrath."

I believe it is essentially appropriate that we take an analogous approach to defining the terms rather than a univocal or equivical approach. While I will get to a lengthy discussion on this the next few days, today will be resigned to a brief summary:

• 1) An equivical approach to these terms about God dictates that the words as we understand them in immanence are nothing like what they actually mean in regards to transcendence (i.e. the Transcendent God). This faulty approach leads us to pure speculation and mysticism.
• 2) A univocal approach to these terms dictates that the words as we understand them in immanence mean the very same thing as they do for the transcendent God. This faulty approach leads us to be slaves of rationalism. This is also the most common way people interpret words about God and it leads to really bad theology.

Solution: The analogous approach. "Bugs on a quarter" language (I am indebted to Dr. John Mark Hicks for this terminology)

An analogous approach admits that the terms say something about God that we can relate to, but not in the same way as we would define it. It is truth but it is accommodative truth.

Here is an example:
It is like a parent who is a leading scientist telling his 3-year-old child to not pick up a quarter off the ground and suck on it because of a simple explanation like “it has bugs on it.” However, in reality it is because the quarter is covered with micro-bacteria that can cause sickness and a bunch of other complex scientific and health reasons. But the child won’t do it because s/he simply doesn’t want bugs in his/her mouth. This is a parent’s use of accommodative truth.

I believe that similarly, words about God “knowing," "deciding," "repenting," or "love," "wrath," "gracious," etc. are similar bugs on a quarter statements. The next three days will explain in greater detail.

So starting tomorrow and through Friday I will go a bit deeper in explaining how we read words attributed to God. We will explore the Creator-creature relationship and the archetypal-ectypal distinction (this means, original and perfect understanding [how God understands] vs. understanding as reproduction or copy [how man understands]).

---