Chapter 9

NORMAN GEISLERNORMAN GEISLERSYSTEMATIC SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGYTHEOLOGY

CHAPTER NINECHAPTER NINE““THE LINGUISTIC THE LINGUISTIC PRECONDITION”PRECONDITION”

POWERPOINT PREPARED BY POWERPOINT PREPARED BY MARK E. HARDGROVE, D.MIN., PH.D.MARK E. HARDGROVE, D.MIN., PH.D.

THREE BASIC THREE BASIC ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

Evangelicals believe that finite Evangelicals believe that finite human language is capable of human language is capable of meaningfully expressing the meaningfully expressing the nature of the infinite God of nature of the infinite God of Christian theism, which is Christian theism, which is displayed in both general and displayed in both general and special revelation.special revelation.

THREE BASIC THREE BASIC ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVESLogically there are only three possible views with Logically there are only three possible views with regard to God-talk:regard to God-talk:(1)(1)It is equivocal (totally different from the way God It is equivocal (totally different from the way God actually is).actually is).(2)(2)It is univocal (totally the same as God actually is).It is univocal (totally the same as God actually is).(3)(3)It is analogous (similar to the way God actually It is analogous (similar to the way God actually is).is).

THREE BASIC THREE BASIC ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES

•Both equivocal and univocal God-talk Both equivocal and univocal God-talk have serious problems:have serious problems:•Equivocal leads to self-defeating Equivocal leads to self-defeating skepticismskepticism•Univocal leads to an unacceptable Univocal leads to an unacceptable dogmatismdogmatism

EQUIVOCAL GOD-TALKEQUIVOCAL GOD-TALK

• Leaves us in total ignorance about God. Evangelical Leaves us in total ignorance about God. Evangelical theology rejects this alternative:theology rejects this alternative:

• First,First, it is self-defeating, since it affirms with human it is self-defeating, since it affirms with human language about God that we cannot affirm anything language about God that we cannot affirm anything about God.about God.

• Second,Second, the Bible declares that God can be the Bible declares that God can be described in human language. described in human language.

• Third, Third, tthere is a continual and consistent tradition here is a continual and consistent tradition in Christianity that assumes human language can in Christianity that assumes human language can express truth about a transcendent God.express truth about a transcendent God.

UNIVOCAL GOD-TALKUNIVOCAL GOD-TALK

• Some Christian thinkers have argued for the Some Christian thinkers have argued for the univocal view. It is deficient for the univocal view. It is deficient for the following reasons.following reasons.• First,First, how can our finite understanding of how can our finite understanding of

God be entirely the same as God’s infinite?God be entirely the same as God’s infinite?• Second,Second, the Bible declares that God’s the Bible declares that God’s

thoughts are far above our thoughts and thoughts are far above our thoughts and words.words.

ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKANALOGOUS GOD-TALK

According to Geisler (p. 139) “the only viable According to Geisler (p. 139) “the only viable alternative to avoid self-defeating skepticism alternative to avoid self-defeating skepticism on the one hand, and self-deifying dogmatism on the one hand, and self-deifying dogmatism on the other is to demonstrate that legitimate on the other is to demonstrate that legitimate God-talk is analogous to the way God actually God-talk is analogous to the way God actually is. That is to say, language about God is is. That is to say, language about God is neither equivocal (totally different) nor neither equivocal (totally different) nor univocal (totally the same), but is similar univocal (totally the same), but is similar (analogous) to the way God truly exists.(analogous) to the way God truly exists.

THE APPARENT THE APPARENT CONTRADICTIONCONTRADICTIONScotus demonstrated that the Scotus demonstrated that the

analogous analogous conceptsconcepts would not save one would not save one from skepticism; only univocal concepts from skepticism; only univocal concepts can guarantee knowledge of God. But if can guarantee knowledge of God. But if Thomas Aquinas rejects univocal Thomas Aquinas rejects univocal predication, predication, then can he avoid then can he avoid skepticism, for God possesses the skepticism, for God possesses the common perfection infinitely, and common perfection infinitely, and creatures possess it only finitely.creatures possess it only finitely.

UNIVOCAL CONCEPTSUNIVOCAL CONCEPTSBUT ANALOGICAL BUT ANALOGICAL PREDICATIONPREDICATION• Scotus was correct in saying that the concept Scotus was correct in saying that the concept

applied to both God and man must be univocally applied to both God and man must be univocally understood.understood.• Aquinas was correct that the concept must be Aquinas was correct that the concept must be

analogically analogically affirmedaffirmed of God and creatures. of God and creatures.• Definition of the attribute applicable to God and Definition of the attribute applicable to God and

man is the same.man is the same.• Application of it differs in that it is infinitely true Application of it differs in that it is infinitely true

of God, and true of man in a limited manner. of God, and true of man in a limited manner.

UNIVOCAL CONCEPTSUNIVOCAL CONCEPTSBUT ANALOGICAL BUT ANALOGICAL PREDICATIONPREDICATION•For example, in application God is good For example, in application God is good infinitely; man is good only finitely.infinitely; man is good only finitely.•The definition of “good” may be the same The definition of “good” may be the same for God and man, but God is absolutely, for God and man, but God is absolutely, eternally, infinitely good, while man is eternally, infinitely good, while man is good in a limited, finite manner.good in a limited, finite manner.•God is existence, man only has existence.God is existence, man only has existence.

FINITE CONCEPTS ANDFINITE CONCEPTS ANDPREDICATION ABOUT THE PREDICATION ABOUT THE INFINITEINFINITE• The mode of signification differs from what is The mode of signification differs from what is

signifiedsignified• The need for intrinsic analogy based on causalityThe need for intrinsic analogy based on causality• The causal basis for analogy between God and The causal basis for analogy between God and

creaturescreatures1.1.Analogy is based on intrinsic causalityAnalogy is based on intrinsic causality2.2.Analogy is based on efficient causalityAnalogy is based on efficient causality3.3.Analogy is based on essential causalityAnalogy is based on essential causality4.4.Analogy is based on principled, not Analogy is based on principled, not

instrumental, causalityinstrumental, causality

ANALOGOUS LANGUAGE ANALOGOUS LANGUAGE IN GOD’S REVELATIONIN GOD’S REVELATIONAnalogous language and Special RevelationAnalogous language and Special RevelationThe Bible is emphatic about two things here:The Bible is emphatic about two things here:First, God is beyond our thoughts and concepts, First, God is beyond our thoughts and concepts,

even the best of them (cf. Rom. 11:33). even the best of them (cf. Rom. 11:33). Second, human language is adequate for Second, human language is adequate for

expressing the attributes of God, for in spite of expressing the attributes of God, for in spite of the infinite difference between God and the infinite difference between God and creatures, there is not a total lack of similarity.creatures, there is not a total lack of similarity.

ANALOGOUS LANGUAGE ANALOGOUS LANGUAGE IN GOD’S REVELATIONIN GOD’S REVELATIONAnalogous language and General RevelationAnalogous language and General RevelationTwo reasons that statements made about on Two reasons that statements made about on

God on the basis of revelation are merely God on the basis of revelation are merely analogous:analogous:

First, we return to the matter of causality First, we return to the matter of causality already mentioned. God is the Cause and the already mentioned. God is the Cause and the effects get their actuality from God and must effects get their actuality from God and must be similar to Him.be similar to Him.

Second, God cannot create another Pure Act.Second, God cannot create another Pure Act.

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK1.1. Why select some but not all qualities drawn Why select some but not all qualities drawn

from the world and apply only these to God.from the world and apply only these to God.Because only some things flow from God’s Because only some things flow from God’s efficient, essential, principal, and intrinsic efficient, essential, principal, and intrinsic causality. Only these are the perfections causality. Only these are the perfections found in finite creation that do not found in finite creation that do not necessarily denote what is finite. They necessarily denote what is finite. They alone may be appropriately applied to God.alone may be appropriately applied to God.

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK

2. Words divorced from their finite mode or 2. Words divorced from their finite mode or conditions are vacuous or devoid of conditions are vacuous or devoid of meaning.meaning.This ignores the distinction between a This ignores the distinction between a concept and its predication. Some words, concept and its predication. Some words, such as goodness, being and beauty are not such as goodness, being and beauty are not emptied when applied to God; the words emptied when applied to God; the words are merely extended without limits.are merely extended without limits.


3. Analogy rests on the assumption that 3. Analogy rests on the assumption that causality provides a similarity.causality provides a similarity.This is true, but the assumption is This is true, but the assumption is justifiable in terms of intrinsic, essential, justifiable in terms of intrinsic, essential, principal, efficient causality, not in terms of principal, efficient causality, not in terms of just any kind of causality. Hence there is a just any kind of causality. Hence there is a solid ontological basis for the similarity solid ontological basis for the similarity between God and creatures in the principle between God and creatures in the principle of causality.of causality.

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK4. Any analogous prediction of God as a 4. Any analogous prediction of God as a First Cause involves an infinite regress of First Cause involves an infinite regress of meaning to identify the univocal element.meaning to identify the univocal element.This objection is not true of univocal This objection is not true of univocal concepts that have analogical predication. concepts that have analogical predication. The only way to avoid equivocation when The only way to avoid equivocation when predicating the same perfection of both predicating the same perfection of both finite beings and infinite Being is to finite beings and infinite Being is to predicate it differently according to the predicate it differently according to the mode of being that each is.mode of being that each is.


5. Even accepting the challengeable 5. Even accepting the challengeable metaphysical assumption that there is a metaphysical assumption that there is a similarity among beings, this ontology is not similarity among beings, this ontology is not univocally expressible.univocally expressible.

First, this is not a mere assumption for a theist; First, this is not a mere assumption for a theist; it is the only alterative to monism. If there it is the only alterative to monism. If there are many beings there must be an analogical are many beings there must be an analogical similarity among beings; were this not so, similarity among beings; were this not so, there could only be one being in the there could only be one being in the universe.universe.

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK5. Even accepting the challengeable metaphysical assumption 5. Even accepting the challengeable metaphysical assumption that there is a similarity among beings, this ontology is not that there is a similarity among beings, this ontology is not univocally expressible.univocally expressible.

Second, Second, being being is univocally conceived, but it is univocally conceived, but it is analogically predicated of God and is analogically predicated of God and finite being. That they both exist is finite being. That they both exist is univocally conceived; how they each exist univocally conceived; how they each exist is analogically predicated, for God exists is analogically predicated, for God exists necessarily and creatures exist only necessarily and creatures exist only contingently; there is a distinct difference contingently; there is a distinct difference in the mode of existence, even though the in the mode of existence, even though the fact of their existence is the same.fact of their existence is the same.


6. The distinction between univocal equivocal 6. The distinction between univocal equivocal is obsolete, and consequently the notion of is obsolete, and consequently the notion of analogy is obsolete.analogy is obsolete.There may not be any obligatory standard There may not be any obligatory standard for univocal language, but this fact is for univocal language, but this fact is irrelevant, since all we mean by “univocal irrelevant, since all we mean by “univocal meaning” is language in its ordinary meaning” is language in its ordinary context of meaning.context of meaning.


7. A general theory of analogy does not work. 7. A general theory of analogy does not work. Any formula we set up will leave us with Any formula we set up will leave us with ambiguity and equivocation.ambiguity and equivocation.

First, the present account does not provide a First, the present account does not provide a specific formula for univocal language specific formula for univocal language meaning.meaning.

Second, the present account gives no formula for Second, the present account gives no formula for meaning at all. As long as analogy is tied to meaning at all. As long as analogy is tied to the metaphysics of intrinsic causality, it must the metaphysics of intrinsic causality, it must work, even if a theoretical language formula work, even if a theoretical language formula does not do the trick.does not do the trick.

SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONSUMMARY & CONCLUSION

The linguistic precondition of evangelical The linguistic precondition of evangelical theology is that we do have some positive theology is that we do have some positive knowledge of God. Human language, however knowledge of God. Human language, however limited, is capable of making true statements limited, is capable of making true statements about God and His relation to the world. about God and His relation to the world. However, these predications cannot be However, these predications cannot be univocal, since all human concepts cannot univocal, since all human concepts cannot apply to an infinite Being without qualification.apply to an infinite Being without qualification.

Chapter 9

Education

Transcript of Chapter 9