The use of human language to describe God is an issue that has embattled Christians throughout history. Believers tried to explain God in plain language and exhaust vocabularies to illustrate his truths, yet nothing still comes close in making a great sense of the ‘God-talk’. As I closely examine the ins and outs of using the human language in talking about God, I realized how limited words are in somehow giving us a clear picture of God. We can only be content with the truth that we will never be able to find perfect (human) words to describe a perfect (divine) being.
The problem with language is that it is not enough to describe God, nor would it be satisfactory in doing so. The words of man could never interpret what God is like completely. However, this is not to say that we cannot fully trust human words to identify God in our ‘God-talk’. Let us once again use the idea of the ‘incorporeal person’ when we talk about God. In human language, this is somehow absurd to talk about. We talk of persons as physical beings and not spirits. If we are to say that a person is ‘incorporeal’, that would be an absurd statement that is somehow unacceptable in the limited human mind. But how are we to explain such cases if the words that we have are very limited and cannot encompass that which is beyond the physical dimension. Can we use still use our ‘language’ to completely comprehend the ‘incorporeal’ realm?
I would say that we still have to go back to language in order to describe that which we know though it may not be complete. We have to understand that incomplete as it may be, words can still be used to communicate truths. We can still use language to give us an idea of what God is like. I would agree with skeptics that it is difficult to use words in talking about God, but this is not to dismiss language as a basis of our God talk because this is what we only have to identify and characterize him. Though it may be difficult, we cannot say that words are useless in its entirety in talking about God because to do so is to say that we are not making sense as well in talking about things, (other than God) that are somehow difficult to comprehend.
There is a problem of delimitation when it comes to describing God in human terms. We do not have a clear guideline as to when it is and when it is not possible to use words in describing God. The use of metaphors somehow is helpful in our ‘God-talk’. Nevertheless, it could not be exact. It gives us an idea, but an idea which is not complete. If it is through metaphors that we will be discussing about the comprehensibility of God, figurative definition would not suffice our description of God, because questions as to the literal meaning of who he is will always pop up and cannot be answered by this approach.
The use of negation in talking about God has a lot more problem in our understanding of who he is. When we say that God is not like this and that, we still have to somehow get the picture of what he is like in order to obviously understand the idea of negation. In doing so, it will give us a lot more problem to discuss and describe God in our ‘God-talk’. Also, we cannot always talk of what God is not in order for God to be intelligible for us humans as we are not used to define things using the idea of negation. If we say God is not like this and that, the question that would usually follow is, ‘So what is he?’ then, the question remains unanswered.
Thomas Aquinas largely contributed to the use of analogy in describing and talking about God. However, he maintains that words cannot be applied to God and creatures equivocally, and that, they are used analogically. However, the use of analogy cannot be trusted entirely, for analogies especially in the ‘God-talk’ since they cannot still be exact representations of who God is.
So, how are we to respond to the following questions: ‘Can we really talk significantly about God and who he is?’ Is he comprehensible or not? Are words meaningful enough to describe him? Or could he ever be describable?
We have to acknowledge at the outset that neither human language nor the attempts of the different approaches are successful at describing and articulating God in their ‘God-talk’. Words are not enough to give us an intelligible meaning of the Supreme Being. However, is there still a reason for us to talk about God amidst all these issues? As a believer, doubtless to say, there should be a positive response to this question. We have to realize that God has revealed himself to us in his Word who and what he is like, and from this, we can infer that God in a way is intelligible. Human words which are God-inspired are trustworthy statements for it did not come from man but from God himself. However, in explaining these God-inspired statements in our own words, we have to accept that our words will always fall short in exhausting and expressing who and what God is.
Again, we can only be content with the truth that we will never be able to find perfect (human) words to describe a perfect (divine) being. We will not be able to completely comprehend God nor exhaust him for all that he is. For if we will be able to do so, God will cease to be God.
God is God, and so let Him be....
No comments:
Post a Comment