Hodge on the Freedom of the Divine Will

Status
Not open for further replies.

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
If no such definition is possible, how does one define "analogical?" An analogy by definition must have a point of resemblance.

I don't know how to answer that question. My original idea about that was that "analogy" would have to be defined analogically, but I couldn't imagine what that could possibly mean or if it was just nonsense.

I think the question was rhetorical in that we should not use the word analogical in any sense that predicates that God, in His essence, has any point of resemblance. I understand we can give a different definition to the word analogical, though my question would be what word can we use to describe God as He is (in se) that we can understand? Of course there is no word that can explain God Who is qualitatively different than we are. As Pastor Strange pointed out earlier the value of apophatic theology plays a large role which may In my most humble opinion play the only role in describing God in se.

I stand here to be corrected if need be.
 
Last edited:

Stowaway

Puritan Board Freshman
I stand here to be corrected if need be.

You can assume that the only possible way for God to meaningfully communicate His knowledge is univocally. Like I said, I'm not persuaded either way, and I didn't really want to get it to any speculative stuff here.

The main point of this thread was about contingency, which in turn has led to the question of whether we should agree with Craig and Rev. Strange that consonance accurately describes the divine will. Of course, I don't agree with that view. Since the origin of all things is in God's nature, and the purpose of all things is His good pleasure, that leaves little room for contingency or anything uncertain as suggested by the word "consonance":

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Romans 11:36
 
Last edited:

Alan D. Strange

Puritan Board Senior
I appreciate, Matthew, your #24 (above). I resonate with what you say there, particularly about the incomprehensibility of God (Nyssa had a point about this with relation to God's infinitude) and even analogy. We can come across in our use of that sounding like Thomists, but my view of analogy is akin to Van Til's, who happily affirms (as do I) “We dare not maintain that [God’s] knowledge and our knowledge coincide at any single point.”

Peace,
Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top