Interpreting Words About God: Part 5 of 5, "Limiting God is Bad Theology"

• Monday) "Test case: Genesis": Authorial use of anthropomorphic language.
• Tuesday) "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) "The Creator-creature Distinction": The Creator-creature ontological relationship and the archetypal-ectypal distinction.
• Thursday) "Analogy Must Be the Rule": The argument advocating use of only analogous interpretation for ALL words attributed to what God does and about who He is.
• Today) "Limiting God to creaturely Bounds is Bad Theology": A note to critics and some final comments.

Today, I will end this series for now with one last excerpt from the Michael Horton article (full reference on this post) and some final comments from me.

Those who are uncomfortable with this analogical approach frequently betray an autonomous view of knowledge. How can we know if the analogies fit? The assumption seems to be that unless one can stand outside of the analogy and its referent, one cannot compare the analogy for its success. Many conclude that if the predicate ‘good’ applied to both God and Sally does not mean exactly the same thing, then we are left in skepticism (equivocity). Either rationalism or irrationalism: that is the choice that an autonomous epistemology requires. But [an] analogical approach insists that, because Scripture is God’s own speech in human language, the analogies that God selects are appropriate whether we know the exact fit or not. We do not need that which we cannot possibly have—namely, archetypal knowledge. Because creaturely knowledge is inherently ectypal, it is essentially analogical. Univocal knowledge is reserved for the Creator and his archetypal theology. But if God authorizes the analogies, they must be accurate descriptions even though they do not provide univocal access to God’s being. Scripture is sufficient for the purposes God intended—to reconcile us to himself, not to satisfy our curiosity.

So as a final thought from me, as we read the Word the notion that we can get precise about God and make a one-to-one is not accurate. It limits God to creaturely bounds. The Word is revelatory in that we encounter God so that it transforms us not so much that we can figure Him all out.

Words like God ‘repented,’ or changed His mind, or ‘grieved’ or even 'love' and 'wrath' are “bugs on the quarter” language. It is language that shapes us and is authentic but it is not defining or precision language about God. We must not interpret univocally, for if we do we end up defining God in our image and miss the Transcendent God. 

We must not use these words as the starting point that defines transcendence. It's really bad theology to do so. However, we can use the words to connect God to our experience in such a way that we are transformed by them as well as maintain that they still say something true about God.

If I can carve out some time, I am thinking of adding to this series with a post or two on the doctrine of God's impassibility which deals with this issue as well. But I do hope this series was edifying to those who read it and that it helps you have an appropriate and Transcendent-honoring interpretation of the Scriptures.

---