Parchment and Pen » analogia entis

analogia entis

Taken from the Theological Word of the Day (TWOD) (to which you should all subscribe!)

Let’s discuss. Do you all agree with the concept expressed by the analogia entis? Read first, then comment.

(Lat. “analogy of being”)

also, “analogy of imitation” or “analogy of participation”

The belief that there exists an analogy or correspondence between the creation and God that makes theological conversation about God possible. While many would say that finite beings with finite language cannot describe an infinite God, theologians of the medieval era discussed this problem, seeking to resolve it by developing a theory which alloted the communication of words into three separate categories.

1) Some words are univocal (always used with the same sense)

2) Some were equivocal (used with very different senses)

3) Some were analogical (used with related senses).

It is this third sense that the analogia entis finds meaning.

While finite man cannot describe and infinite God perfectly (univocally), he can do so truly being that God has created man in his image and, through this, has provided and analogical way of communicating himself. To deny the analogia entis is thought, by some, to be a self defeating proposition since it would present the situation where an all-powerful God is not powerful enough to communicate himself to his creation.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

No Responses to “analogia entis”

britphil on 30 Sep 2008 at 5:12 am #

I think..(and I shall tread carefully here..because if I am honest I am still not totally sure what agreement with the concept will label me as…) that I agree.

If we are created in the image of God, there has surely got to be a part of our being which has been designed to commune with our Creator. It also helps explain how God communicated with his creation prior to the coming of Christ and the Talmudic writings..

It also helps to explain how God communicates to his created beings after the Fall. ie prior to the Fall there would be no problem as sin did not exist and therefore God and human beings could converse freely.

I think it should also be pointed out that it is a limited doctrine in that God does not necessarily need language to communicate with humanity. The Psalmists tells us that the heavens themselves alone declare the glory of God as if pouring forth divine speech without any need ot our being able to respond likewise. Paul reiterates this when he states that we can be persuaded of the existence of God through his created order, but he has chosen to make himself more intimately known and knowable through His Son.

Do you see Michael…my posts are becoming admirably shorter, but that may because I feel I am on far less stable ground when conversing with experts in theology, than I do when confidently discussing economic/political theory!
Chad Winters on 30 Sep 2008 at 8:48 am #

I’d like to say something profound here…..but I’m fairly sure that I have no i8dea what you jsut said. Although idt did seem that the final conclusion did not obviously folow from the argument. Or I just didn’t understand it….which is quite possible. (The first time I read it sounded like one of the adults on a Peanuts episode)

This is good, you are brancing into new totally confusing territory!!
britphil on 30 Sep 2008 at 10:16 am #

Chad

“I’d like to say something profound here…..but I’m fairly sure that I have no idea what you just said”

I guess that it was my comment you are referring to and not Michael’s initial posting.

Sorry if I confused you…first of all Bill and now your good self!! I’m not doing very well at the moment it would appear!

Whatever you were going to say it was probably far more profound than anything I have contributed recently. I would have inserted a smiley face at this juncture, but I have forgotten how to do it. Somebody did kindly let me know but I can’t remember as I haven’t used the smiley face symbol for quite some time.
Chad Winters on 30 Sep 2008 at 10:24 am #

no..no… It was Michael’s post. Maybe its just me but that was one of those so deeply philosophical things that my limited brain couldn’t encompass it. (Honestly, after Michael’s post I gauve up on you8r reply after the first paragraph!!)

I need to get back in the kiddie pool……
britphil on 30 Sep 2008 at 10:30 am #

Chad

I’m so relieved to hear that..I thought I was beginning to confuse all and sundry on here. To be truthful, I felt exactly the same as you did but tried to make it look as though I thought I might have sussed what Michael was trying to get at.

Clear some room over there in the kiddie pool. I’m jumping in to join you!
Chad Winters on 30 Sep 2008 at 10:58 am #

Well, I referenced my dog-eared copy of “CMP for Dummies” for translation help and I think he said “I think therefore God is”

Seriously though, when we use analogies we use find they can only be taken so far adn usually break down at some point. How can we say that an analogy describes God “truly” and jsut because I cannot describe God truly and accurately, why would this mean he can’t communicate with me?
Chad Winters on 30 Sep 2008 at 11:00 am #

P.S. sorry for the typos, but my text box always extends into the black area
on the side and I can’t see the words.
britphil on 30 Sep 2008 at 11:22 am #

“Well, I referenced my dog-eared copy of “CMP for Dummies” for translation help and I think he said “I think therefore God is”

Ah good…good old Descartian philosophy!! Where would be without it!

Chad…quick…while CMP isn’t looking…chuck me over a copy of CMP for Dummies. Sounds like an unputdownable publication I need to read…and quickly!
JacksonH on 30 Sep 2008 at 11:26 am #

God does communicate who He is (that is why we have the scriptures) however, I think that we will never know it all, and yet we have enough, or we have all the knowledge that we need to have.

I have an emergent “friend” who says that I am gnostic, because I claim that I can explain more of the nature of God than he.

The fact that we have in many ways a limited understanding of God, does not take away from his power, it merely highlights our humanity.

My two cents. Great post though.
bethyada on 01 Oct 2008 at 3:16 am #

The issue with different words is not so much in how they are used within a language as much as where they translate across a language. As God speaks all languages better than any man then God can communicate.

Explanation
1. The thing that resolves this is realising that just because you cannot understand or explain some things fully does not mean that you cannot explain them at all.

2. Further, that you cannot understand something fully does not mean you cannot understand a component completely.

Application
1. So God is infinite and I am finite but I can still partially understand God.

2. And I can possibly understand a component of God fully even though I can’t understand all of God fully.

Analogy
Take maths as an analogy (by saying this I am conceding your post!). Maths is likely infinite, but even if it is not it is bigger than my understanding.

1. I understand parts of maths such as differentiation even though I can’t solve every (potentially solvable) differential equation.

2. I also understand (1 dimensional) addition fully even though I don’t understand other components of maths. I know the communicative and associative rules and I can add any 2 or more (real) numbers.
Phil McCheddar on 03 Oct 2008 at 10:55 am #

I’m not sure I understand “analogia entis”. But is it anything to do with the idea of Jesus being true bread? The correct definition of bread is Jesus, whereas the physical bakery product we eat is only an analogy of Jesus that teaches us something about Jesus being the sustainer and nourisher and satisfier of true life. Likewise all of God’s creation are representations of spiritual entities that teach us spiritual truths. The spiritual entities are the originals, whereas the physical creations are mere echoes or simulations of the originals.

[The Levitical priests] serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” (Hebrews 8:5, NIV)

For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. (Hebrews 9:24, NIV)
C. Barton on 03 Oct 2008 at 3:50 pm #

I’ll jump into the shallow end here . . .
With mathematics, there is usually a unique answer to a problem, and noting else can be a “better” answer.
With language and meaning, there might be a hundred different ways to say something, and they’re all “correct” in a sense.
But what if you had to describe something by analogy or parable? Could you constantly improve on your description as you gain more insight? My answer to this is yes, as we mature in the Spirit and gain more insight, our perspectives and perceptions change, and so does our language. Our experiences here on earth also enrich our vocabulary.
Didn’t Jesus use parables in part to describe the indescribable?
I think God, by His nature, is not knowable in a direct sense until we actually get to Heaven; until then, we must use an intermediate language and perception because of our earthly vessels.
When I am thirsty, I don’t want WATER, meaning all water everywhere – I want and in fact can only handle a small portion of water, even though, in principle, it is WATER which quenches my thirst.
If WATER is the absolute, and the small drink is the existential part, then I can never know all WATER until I throw off this carnal container. This is my best understanding at the moment.