In preparation for our annual Church Camp on the Doctrine of the Trinity, I have been reading Broughton Knox’s essay ‘God in Trinity’ from D. Broughton Knox Selected Works: Volume I The Doctrine of God (Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2000). Here’s an excerpt which has an interesting connection to a question raised in my previous post - can our theological language which comes through human words and language actually refer to and describe who God is? Is theological language univocal, equivocal or merely analogical?
Knox says this:
The doctrine of the Trinity helps solve another problem which troubles modern theologians. How is it possible that human language drawn from human experience can be an adequate vehicle for describing the ineffable God? Must all language be merely analogical when it is used to describe the realities of religion? That is a very popular view. Religious language is thought to be analogical and not direct description, but if this were true it would mean we have no sure knowledge of God, for we cannot be sure how an analogy fits unless we already know the object which the analogy describes-that is, unless we already know God, we cannot know whether analogical language fits the God of whom we are speaking. In other words, this line of thought means that we have no sure knowledge of God and this is a conclusion of much modern theology.
However, the doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that human life has been created in th
e image of God. Human relationships reflect the image of the Trinity. It follows that human language reflecting these human relationships is a suitable vehicle to describe God's relationships within himself and with humanity, for we have been created in his image and our relationships correspond to his relationships, for they are an image of them. It follows that when God chooses human language to describe his relationships, not only within himself but especially his relationships to us, he is not using analogical language but a direct description of reality, for the language being used is language drawn from the image of that reality. It is God who is using the language (for he is inspiring the prophet), and the vehicle that he is using (human language) is adequate, indeed exact, to describe what would otherwise be beyond our powers of knowing. Because we have been created in the image of God, the revelation of God to us becomes a possibility. We may know him truly through our own human language. [...] God reveals himself to us personally in a direct and literal and not merely analogical way, and so we are able to respond in a real and true way and enter into real personal relationships with God. All this follows from the fact that God is Trinity and has created us in his image, that is to say, to be relational, so that the language which describes our relationships is an adequate vehicle when used by God himself to describe the real relationships that he has within himself and with us. In other words, religious language is not analogical but direct and univocal (p.90-91, my emphasis)
Knox has provided us an interesting and important insight. If David Clark (from the previous post) provided us a philosophical reason for the univocal nature of language when it comes to describing God, Broughton Knox here provides us a theological reason. The overall insight is valid and important. But upon deeper thought, one realises that Knox’s argument works through various intermediary steps. God, in giving us the gift of language, has allowed that human language describes human relationships (univocally). Human relationships in turn reflect (though not fully or perfectly but truely i.e. univocally) God’s relationships within Himself and with humanity, since we are created in the image of the Triune God. Hence, human language ‘which describes our relationships is an adequate vehicle when used by God himself to describe the real relationships that He has within himself and with us’ (p.91). In another words, Knox’s argument really works based on a two-stage univocity. Human language describe human relationships univocally, and human relationships represent the inter-Triune and the Triune God-mankind relationships univocally too, hence human language can refer to the Triune God univocally.
However, the doctrine of the Trinity reminds us that human life has been created in th
e image of God. Human relationships reflect the image of the Trinity. It follows that human language reflecting these human relationships is a suitable vehicle to describe God's relationships within himself and with humanity, for we have been created in his image and our relationships correspond to his relationships, for they are an image of them. It follows that when God chooses human language to describe his relationships, not only within himself but especially his relationships to us, he is not using analogical language but a direct description of reality, for the language being used is language drawn from the image of that reality. It is God who is using the language (for he is inspiring the prophet), and the vehicle that he is using (human language) is adequate, indeed exact, to describe what would otherwise be beyond our powers of knowing. Because we have been created in the image of God, the revelation of God to us becomes a possibility. We may know him truly through our own human language. [...] God reveals himself to us personally in a direct and literal and not merely analogical way, and so we are able to respond in a real and true way and enter into real personal relationships with God. All this follows from the fact that God is Trinity and has created us in his image, that is to say, to be relational, so that the language which describes our relationships is an adequate vehicle when used by God himself to describe the real relationships that he has within himself and with us. In other words, religious language is not analogical but direct and univocal (p.90-91, my emphasis)Knox has provided us an interesting and important insight. If David Clark (from the previous post) provided us a philosophical reason for the univocal nature of language when it comes to describing God, Broughton Knox here provides us a theological reason. The overall insight is valid and important. But upon deeper thought, one realises that Knox’s argument works through various intermediary steps. God, in giving us the gift of language, has allowed that human language describes human relationships (univocally). Human relationships in turn reflect (though not fully or perfectly but truely i.e. univocally) God’s relationships within Himself and with humanity, since we are created in the image of the Triune God. Hence, human language ‘which describes our relationships is an adequate vehicle when used by God himself to describe the real relationships that He has within himself and with us’ (p.91). In another words, Knox’s argument really works based on a two-stage univocity. Human language describe human relationships univocally, and human relationships represent the inter-Triune and the Triune God-mankind relationships univocally too, hence human language can refer to the Triune God univocally.
I’m wondering if Kno
x’s argument can be further strengthened by the truth of the incarnation. The inter-Trinitarian relationships summarised by love and other-centredness and servant-mindedness (and Knox provides in his essay biblical references to show this) sees its climax in the incarnation of the second person of the Godhead, God the Son. Jesus comes and speaks to us these daring and totally amazing words, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him. [...] Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father [...].” (John 14:6-7, 9). Jesus here is saying when we know Him and relate to Him, we are relating to the Father as well (through Jesus enabled by the Spirit). The force of Jesus’ statement here is univocal. Jesus is not saying here that knowing him is different from knowing the Father (equivocal relationship), nor is he merely saying knowing him is like knowing the Father (analogous relationship), but He is saying knowing him is equivalent to knowing the Father (univocal relationship). In another words, it is through our knowing and relating to Jesus that we are brought into relationship with the Triune God. And how do we know and relate to Jesus? We know him through his words spoken, which by virtue of the fact that he is God the Son incarnated as man, means through his words of human language. There is of course the role of the Holy Spirit in reminding the disciples and illuminating and convicting us today of what Jesus had spoken, but the point remains clear – human words and language help us to know Jesus univocally, and knowing Jesus is knowing the Triune God univocally. The incarnation of our Lord Jesus arising from the doctrine of the Trinity grounds this truth. 
hmm... interesting... Why must it follows that if our language about God is analogical, therefore we will not have a sure knowledge of God? We know for sure that God is a Triune God right? And yet God is incomprehendsible.
ReplyDeleteHmm.. 3rd paragraph.. (though not fully or perfectly but truely....): Isn't that a definition of analogical rather than univocal? We can have an idea of the inter-trinitarian relationship of God but not a comprehensive knowledge by looking at ourselves will suggest that it is analogical in nature right? It is a problem in modern days where we know God simply by magnifying man.
I am interested as I am looking at the topic of Divine Simplicity. :) Topic of mode of sppech we use is not a modern topic it goes way back to medieval times. (Thomas Aquinas, and also Conelius Van Til.) :)