background image
Horton
Thus, Calvin and the Reformed do not use analogy as a fall-back strategy when they
find something that does not fit their system; rather, it is the warp and woof of their
covenantal approach, a necessary implication of the Creator-creature relationship as they
understand it. All of God's self-revelation is analogical, not just some of it. This is why
Calvin speaks, for instance, of God's "lisping" or speaking "baby-talk" in his
condescending mercy. Just as God comes down to us in the Incarnation in order to save
us who could not ascend to him, he meets us in scripture by descending to our weakness.
Thus, not only is God's transcendence affirmed, but his radical immanence as well.
Transcendence and immanence become inextricably bound up with the divine drama of
redemption. Revelation no less than redemption is an act of condescension and
grace.
31[31]
Those who are uncomfortable with this analogical approach frequently betray an
autonomous view of knowledge.
32[32]
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 a Reformed 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.
33[33]
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.
Once more, it was the Socinian and Remonstrant (Arminian) schools that strongly
opposed this approach, raising reason and speculative deductions above clear scriptural
statements and insisting upon univocal access to God's being. This is further evidence
that Reformed theology is far from being a rationalistic system claiming to be a
reproduction of the mind of God.
34[34]
In fact, although the term "pilgrim theology"
transgress the boundary of mystery in pursuit of the Visio Dei. According to the Fourth Lateran Council, in
all analogies between God and the creature there is always more dissimilarity than similarity.
31[31]
For a brilliant treatment of this relationship, see Ronald Thiemann, Revelation and Redemption (Notre
Dame, IA: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985).
32[32]
Wolfhart Pannenberg, "Analogy," op.cit.
33[33]
Following Herman Bavinck, C. Van Til says that all revelation is not only analogical but
anthropomorphic. "It is an adaptation by God to the limitations of the human creature. Man's systematic
interpretation of the revelation of God is never more than an approximation of the system of truth revealed
in Scripture, and this system of truth as revealed in Scripture is itself anthropomorphic. But being
anthropomorphic does not make it untrue. The Confessions of the Church pretend to be nothing more than
frankly approximated statements of the inherently anthropomorphic revelation of God," A Christian Theory
of Knowledge (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1969), 41
34[34]
Herman Bavinck displays this anti-speculative character, asserting that "God's being in the abstract is
nowhere discussed" in scripture. "The Hebrew word tushiah from the root yashah, to exist, to be,..."
indicate an enduring character (Job 5:12; 6:13; 12:16; 26:3; Prov. 2:7; 3:21; 8:14; Is. 28:29; Mic. 6:9); `but
in none of these passages does it signify the being of God.' These passages give us something of God's
`excellencies or virtues,' but not access to his nature. `Scripture nowhere discusses God's being apart from