The document discusses Norman Geisler's view that language about God can be meaningful, but is analogical rather than equivocal or univocal. It presents three views of language about God - equivocal, univocal, and analogous. Equivocal and univocal views are problematic, leaving skepticism or dogmatism, but the analogous view allows language to be similar without being identical to God. Concepts can apply to God and creatures in the same way, but be predicated differently based on God's infinite nature. Revelation and causality support applying perfections to God analogously. Objections to analogy are addressed by distinguishing concepts from predication and grounds for similarity in different types of causality.

1. NORMAN GEISLERNORMAN GEISLER
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGYSYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
CHAPTERNINECHAPTERNINE
““THE LINGUISTICTHE LINGUISTIC
PRECONDITION”PRECONDITION”
POWERPOINT PREPARED BYPOWERPOINT PREPARED BY
MARK E. HARDGROVE, D.MIN., PH.D.MARK E. HARDGROVE, D.MIN., PH.D.

2. THREE BASIC ALTERNATIVESTHREE BASIC ALTERNATIVES
Evangelicals believe that finiteEvangelicals believe that finite
human language is capable ofhuman language is capable of
meaningfully expressing themeaningfully expressing the
nature of the infinite God ofnature of the infinite God of
Christian theism, which isChristian theism, which is
displayed in both general anddisplayed in both general and
special revelation.special revelation.

3. THREE BASIC ALTERNATIVESTHREE BASIC ALTERNATIVES
Logically there are only three possible views withLogically 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 GodIt 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 is).It is analogous (similar to the way God actually is).

4. THREE BASIC ALTERNATIVESTHREE BASIC ALTERNATIVES
•Both equivocal and univocal God-talkhave seriousBoth equivocal and univocal God-talkhave serious
problems:problems:
•Equivocal leads to self-defeating skepticismEquivocal leads to self-defeating skepticism
•Univocal leads to an unacceptable dogmatismUnivocal leads to an unacceptable dogmatism

5. EQUIVOCAL GOD-TALKEQUIVOCAL GOD-TALK
• Leaves us in total ignorance about God. Evangelical theologyLeaves us in total ignorance about God. Evangelical theology
rejects this alternative:rejects this alternative:
• First,First, it is self-defeating, since it affirms with humanit is self-defeating, since it affirms with human
language about God that we cannot affirmanything aboutlanguage about God that we cannot affirmanything about
God.God.
• Second,Second, the Bible declares that God can be described inthe Bible declares that God can be described in
human language.human language.
• Third,Third, tthere is a continual and consistent tradition inhere is a continual and consistent tradition in
Christianity that assumes human language can express truthChristianity that assumes human language can express truth
about a transcendent God.about a transcendent God.

6. UNIVOCAL GOD-TALKUNIVOCAL GOD-TALK
• Some Christian thinkers have argued fortheSome Christian thinkers have argued forthe
univocal view. It is deficient forthe followingunivocal view. It is deficient forthe following
reasons.reasons.
• First,First, how can ourfinite understanding of God behow can ourfinite understanding of God be
entirely the same as God’s infinite?entirely the same as God’s infinite?
• Second,Second, the Bible declares that God’s thoughts arethe Bible declares that God’s thoughts are
farabove ourthoughts and words.farabove ourthoughts and words.

7. ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
According to Geisler(p. 139) “the only viableAccording to Geisler(p. 139) “the only viable
alternative to avoid self-defeating skepticism on thealternative to avoid self-defeating skepticism on the
one hand, and self-deifying dogmatism on the otherone hand, and self-deifying dogmatism on the other
is to demonstrate that legitimate God-talkisis to demonstrate that legitimate God-talkis
analogous to the way God actually is. That is to say,analogous to the way God actually is. That is to say,
language about God is neitherequivocal (totallylanguage about God is neitherequivocal (totally
different) norunivocal (totally the same), but isdifferent) norunivocal (totally the same), but is
similar(analogous) to the way God truly exists.similar(analogous) to the way God truly exists.

8. THE APPARENTTHE APPARENT
CONTRADICTIONCONTRADICTION
Scotus demonstrated that theScotus demonstrated that the
analogousanalogous conceptsconcepts would not save onewould not save one
fromskepticism; only univocal conceptsfromskepticism; only univocal concepts
can guarantee knowledge of God. But ifcan guarantee knowledge of God. But if
Thomas Aquinas rejects univocalThomas Aquinas rejects univocal
predication,predication, then can he avoidthen can he avoid
skepticism, forGod possesses theskepticism, forGod possesses the
common perfection infinitely, andcommon perfection infinitely, and

9. UNIVOCAL CONCEPTSUNIVOCAL CONCEPTS
BUT ANALOGICAL PREDICATIONBUT ANALOGICAL PREDICATION
• Scotus was correct in saying that the concept applied toScotus was correct in saying that the concept applied to
both God and man must be univocallyboth God and man must be univocally understood.understood.
• Aquinas was correct that the concept must beAquinas was correct that the concept must be
analogicallyanalogically affirmedaffirmed of God and creatures.of God and creatures.
• Definition of the attribute applicable to God and man isDefinition of the attribute applicable to God and man is
the same.the same.
• Application of it differs in that it is infinitely true ofApplication of it differs in that it is infinitely true of
God, and true of man in a limited manner.God, and true of man in a limited manner.

10. UNIVOCAL CONCEPTSUNIVOCAL CONCEPTS
BUT ANALOGICAL PREDICATIONBUT ANALOGICAL PREDICATION
•Forexample, in application God isForexample, in application God is
good infinitely; man is good onlygood infinitely; man is good only
finitely.finitely.
•The definition of “good” may beThe definition of “good” may be
the same forGod and man, butthe same forGod and man, but
God is absolutely, eternally,God is absolutely, eternally,
infinitely good, while man is goodinfinitely good, while man is good

11. FINITE CONCEPTS ANDFINITE CONCEPTS AND
PREDICATION ABOUT THEPREDICATION ABOUT THE
INFINITEINFINITE• The mode of signification differs from what is signifiedThe mode of signification differs from what is signified
• The need forintrinsic analogy based on causalityThe need forintrinsic analogy based on causality
• The causal basis foranalogy between God and creaturesThe causal basis foranalogy between God and creatures
1.1.Analogy is based on intrinsic causalityAnalogy is based on intrinsic causality
2.2.Analogy is based on efficient causalityAnalogy is based on efficient causality
3.3.Analogy is based on essential causalityAnalogy is based on essential causality
4.4.Analogy is based on principled, not instrumental,Analogy is based on principled, not instrumental,
causalitycausality

12. ANALOGOUS LANGUAGEANALOGOUS LANGUAGE
IN GOD’S REVELATIONIN GOD’S REVELATION
Analogous language and Special RevelationAnalogous language and Special Revelation
The Bible is emphatic about two things here:The Bible is emphatic about two things here:
First, God is beyond ourthoughts and concepts, even theFirst, God is beyond ourthoughts and concepts, even the
best of them(cf. Rom. 11:33).best of them(cf. Rom. 11:33).
Second, human language is adequate forexpressing theSecond, human language is adequate forexpressing the
attributes of God, forin spite of the infinite differenceattributes of God, forin spite of the infinite difference
between God and creatures, there is not a total lackofbetween God and creatures, there is not a total lackof
similarity.similarity.

13. ANALOGOUS LANGUAGEANALOGOUS LANGUAGE
IN GOD’S REVELATIONIN GOD’S REVELATION
Analogous language and General RevelationAnalogous language and General Revelation
Two reasons that statements made about on God onTwo reasons that statements made about on God on
the basis of revelation are merely analogous:the basis of revelation are merely analogous:
First, we return to the matterof causality alreadyFirst, we return to the matterof causality already
mentioned. God is the Cause and the effects getmentioned. God is the Cause and the effects get
theiractuality from God and must be similartotheiractuality from God and must be similarto
Him.Him.
Second, God cannot create anotherPure Act.Second, God cannot create anotherPure Act.

14. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
1.1. Why select some but not all qualities drawn fromWhy select some but not all qualities drawn from
the world and apply only these to God.the world and apply only these to God.
Because only some things flow from God’sBecause only some things flow from God’s
efficient, essential, principal, and intrinsicefficient, essential, principal, and intrinsic
causality. Only these are the perfections foundcausality. Only these are the perfections found
in finite creation that do not necessarily denotein finite creation that do not necessarily denote
what is finite. They alone may be appropriatelywhat is finite. They alone may be appropriately
applied to God.applied to God.

15. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
2. Words divorced fromtheirfinite mode orconditions are2. Words divorced fromtheirfinite mode orconditions are
vacuous ordevoid of meaning.vacuous ordevoid of meaning.
This ignores the distinction between a concept and itsThis ignores the distinction between a concept and its
predication. Some words, such as goodness, being andpredication. Some words, such as goodness, being and
beauty are not emptied when applied to God; the wordsbeauty are not emptied when applied to God; the words
are merely extended without limits.are merely extended without limits.

16. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
3. Analogy rests on the assumption that causality provides3. Analogy rests on the assumption that causality provides
a similarity.a similarity.
This is true, but the assumption is justifiable in terms ofThis is true, but the assumption is justifiable in terms of
intrinsic, essential, principal, efficient causality, not inintrinsic, essential, principal, efficient causality, not in
terms of just any kind of causality. Hence there is aterms of just any kind of causality. Hence there is a
solid ontological basis forthe similarity between Godsolid ontological basis forthe similarity between God
and creatures in the principle of causality.and creatures in the principle of causality.

17. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
4. Any analogous prediction of God as a First4. Any analogous prediction of God as a First
Cause involves an infinite regress of meaningCause involves an infinite regress of meaning
to identify the univocal element.to identify the univocal element.
This objection is not true of univocalThis objection is not true of univocal
concepts that have analogical predication.concepts that have analogical predication.
The only way to avoid equivocation whenThe only way to avoid equivocation when
predicating the same perfection of bothpredicating the same perfection of both
finite beings and infinite Being is tofinite beings and infinite Being is to
predicate it differently according to thepredicate it differently according to the
mode of being that each is.mode of being that each is.

18. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
5. Even accepting the challengeable metaphysical5. Even accepting the challengeable metaphysical
assumption that there is a similarity among beings, thisassumption that there is a similarity among beings, this
ontology is not univocally expressible.ontology is not univocally expressible.
First, this is not a mere assumption fora theist; it is theFirst, this is not a mere assumption fora theist; it is the
only alterative to monism. If there are many beingsonly alterative to monism. If there are many beings
there must be an analogical similarity among beings;there must be an analogical similarity among beings;
were this not so, there could only be one being in thewere this not so, there could only be one being in the
universe.universe.

19. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK5. Even accepting the challengeable metaphysical assumption that5. Even accepting the challengeable metaphysical assumption that
there is a similarity among beings, this ontology is not univocallythere is a similarity among beings, this ontology is not univocally
expressible.expressible.
Second,Second, beingbeing is univocally conceived, but it isis univocally conceived, but it is
analogically predicated of God and finiteanalogically predicated of God and finite
being. That they both exist is univocallybeing. That they both exist is univocally
conceived; how they each exist is analogicallyconceived; how they each exist is analogically
predicated, forGod exists necessarily andpredicated, forGod exists necessarily and
creatures exist only contingently; there is acreatures exist only contingently; there is a
distinct difference in the mode of existence,distinct difference in the mode of existence,
even though the fact of theirexistence is theeven though the fact of theirexistence is the

20. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
6. The distinction between univocal equivocal is obsolete,6. The distinction between univocal equivocal is obsolete,
and consequently the notion of analogy is obsolete.and consequently the notion of analogy is obsolete.
There may not be any obligatory standard forunivocalThere may not be any obligatory standard forunivocal
language, but this fact is irrelevant, since all we meanlanguage, but this fact is irrelevant, since all we mean
by “univocal meaning” is language in its ordinaryby “univocal meaning” is language in its ordinary
context of meaning.context of meaning.

21. ANSWERING OBJECTIONSANSWERING OBJECTIONS
TO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALKTO ANALOGOUS GOD-TALK
7. A general theory of analogy does not work. Any formula7. A general theory of analogy does not work. Any formula
we set up will leave us with ambiguity and equivocation.we set up will leave us with ambiguity and equivocation.
First, the present account does not provide a specificFirst, the present account does not provide a specific
formula forunivocal language meaning.formula forunivocal language meaning.
Second, the present account gives no formula formeaningSecond, the present account gives no formula formeaning
at all. As long as analogy is tied to the metaphysics ofat all. As long as analogy is tied to the metaphysics of
intrinsic causality, it must work, even if a theoreticalintrinsic causality, it must work, even if a theoretical
language formula does not do the trick.language formula does not do the trick.

22. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONSUMMARY & CONCLUSION
The linguistic precondition of evangelical theology isThe linguistic precondition of evangelical theology is
that we do have some positive knowledge of God.that we do have some positive knowledge of God.
Human language, howeverlimited, is capable ofHuman language, howeverlimited, is capable of
making true statements about God and His relationmaking true statements about God and His relation
to the world. However, these predications cannot beto the world. However, these predications cannot be
univocal, since all human concepts cannot apply tounivocal, since all human concepts cannot apply to
an infinite Being without qualification.an infinite Being without qualification.