Does God use ANTHROPOMORPHISM in the Scriptures?

[makesends]

Does God use anthropomorphism in the Scriptures?

What can be legitimately inferred by the notion that God does use anthropomorphisms when speaking to us?

What other words are more suitable instead of "anthropomorphism"? What differences of meaning do they hold from "anthropomorphism"?

A) Please give examples of anthropomorphisms (or whatever you call them) in scripture —particularly where God uses them (for eg, in prophecy, not just statements in scripture where Joe Ginosko uses them).

B) For whatever word(s) you come up with as more suitable, can you proffer scripture to support their suitability? Is there support for the implications those words produce?

Notice that (A) is a general thing, while (B) asks for specifics. It is to be understood that the different examples found are each going to have to be dealt with according to their own parameters —context, meaning, intention of the passage in which they are found, other similar passages and uses of the same or similar words, etc.




—A corollary issue, legitimately part of this thread: Does God always and everywhere in Scripture speak with absolute clarity to mankind? How about to the regenerate? If you see scripture that seems to say one way, and other scripture that seems to say the other, please post both. Is it possible that God does both —speaking with absolute clarity and truth, with comprehensive meaning, while also hiding the truth/ portions or depth of the truth, from some people? I do not intend this thread to be about debate as such, to win an argument, but apologetics as mere reasoning together.—

@John Bauer has suggested what I refer to as, "anthropomorphisms", be called, "analogies", i.e. these things attributed to God are analogous to what we see in this temporal existence (or maybe vice versa).

@Josheb has protested, because the term, "anthropomorphism", hasn't been shown (in another thread) to be a legitimate thing. Is it a legitimate thing? Is it a legitimate thing as described by other terms?

 

[Josheb]

Does God use anthropomorphism in the Scriptures?

Define your terms.

Does God describe Himself in anthropomorphic terms? The general answer would be, "Yes because God does not have eyes, ears, a mouth, hands or feet. Having actual parts of an actual body is precluded by His being infinite and Spirit." How ever, there are two means of questioning that answer because 1) humans were made in God's image and that image might well have eyes, ears, hand, and feet, and 2) modern physics tells us matter and energy are simply two variations on a common theme, and something can be finite and infinite. Neither is a condition humans ordinarily observe or experience but the Creator of those conditions can certainly do so.

What can be legitimately inferred by the notion that God does use anthropomorphisms when speaking to us?

What other words are more suitable instead of "anthropomorphism"? What differences of meaning do they hold from "anthropomorphism"?

A) Please give examples of anthropomorphisms (or whatever you call them) in scripture —particularly where God uses them (for eg, in prophecy, not just statements in scripture where Joe Ginosko uses them).

B) For whatever word(s) you come up with as more suitable, can you proffer scripture to support their suitability? Is there support for the implications those words produce?

Notice that (A) is a general thing, while (B) asks for specifics. It is to be understood that the different examples found are each going to have to be dealt with according to their own parameters —context, meaning, intention of the passage in which they are found, other similar passages and uses of the same or similar words, etc.

Please answer the questions yourself, for yourself, about your own viewpoint.

—A corollary issue, legitimately part of this thread: Does God always and everywhere in Scripture speak with absolute clarity to mankind? How about to the regenerate? If you see scripture that seems to say one way, and other scripture that seems to say the other, please post both. Is it possible that God does both —speaking with absolute clarity and truth, with comprehensive meaning, while also hiding the truth/ portions or depth of the truth, from some people? I do not intend this thread to be about debate as such, to win an argument, but apologetics as mere reasoning together.—

@John Bauer has suggested what I refer to as, "anthropomorphisms", be called, "analogies", i.e. these things attributed to God are analogous to what we see in this temporal existence (or maybe vice versa).

@Josheb has protested, because the term, "anthropomorphism", hasn't been shown (in another thread) to be a legitimate thing. Is it a legitimate thing? Is it a legitimate thing as described by other terms?

God describing himself in human terms avoids the more important feature of your posts about concerns. Your earlier viewpoint(s) is that humans assign meanings to God's words and humans (predominantly because of sin) cannot and do not correctly understand God's words. As a result, Christians do not understand how deterministic God, the first cause of all causes, actually is.


Is this not your argument?

Correct me wherever I have misunderstood it.

 

[John Bauer]

Does God use anthropomorphism in the Scripture?

Yes—because he must.

Here is an interesting fact to get your juices going: Scripture does not tell us anything about God that isn’t anthropomorphic, anthropopathic, analogical, or apophatic. (All the Baptists in the audience just squealed in delight at the alliteration.) “All of God’s self-revelation is analogical, not just some of it” (Michael Horton).

• Anthropomorphic (e.g., Prov. 15:3): Speaking of God in human bodily terms (hands, eyes, face) to make his actions and presence intelligible to creatures, without implying God literally possesses a body.
  
  ​
• Anthropopathic (e.g., Gen. 6:6): Attributing human emotions or passions to God (anger, grief, delight) to communicate his covenantal stance and actions, without implying creaturely emotional change in God.
  
  ​
• Analogical (e.g., Rom. 16:27): Predicating creaturely concepts of God with real correspondence but not univocal identity; terms apply truly to God, yet in a higher, non-creaturely mode appropriate to the Creator.
  
  ​
• Apophatic (e.g., 1 Tim. 1:17): Speaking of God by negation, denying creaturely limitations, marking what God is not—not mortal, not visible, not temporal—while safeguarding mystery rather than describing his essence directly.

Scripture never gives us unmediated access to the divine essence as God knows himself. All biblical revelation is accommodated revelation—God speaking TO creatures AS creatures. God knows himself immediately, archetypically, and exhaustively. That knowledge is identical with his essence. But when Scripture testifies to that knowledge, it necessarily does so analogically, because the testimony is for us. The Bible gives us literal, propositional, true revelation, but it is never univocal revelation. As Bavinck said, God’s knowledge of himself is archetypal (theologia archetypa), while our knowledge of God is ectypal (theologia ectypa)—a genuine but finite and dependent reflection of the original divine self-knowledge:

Our knowledge of God is the imprint of the knowledge God has of himself but always on a creaturely level and in a creaturely way. The knowledge of God present in his creatures is only a weak likeness, a finite, limited sketch, of the absolute self-consciousness of God accommodated to the capacities of the human or creaturely consciousness. … The distinction [between archetypal and ectypal knowledge] contains the true idea that the ectypal knowledge of God that is granted to creatures by revelation is not the absolute self-knowledge of God but the knowledge of God as it has been accommodated to and made fit for the finite consciousness—hence anthropomorphized.

Ng Kam Weng writes (2025), “Our knowledge of God is only a finite and faint creaturely impression of the perfect knowledge which God has of himself. … The [archetypal and ectypal] theological framework prevents human theology from falling into either of two errors: (a) rationalism, or claiming direct, unmediated access to God’s self-knowledge, and (b) skepticism, or denying the possibility of any true knowledge of God.”

Does God always and everywhere in Scripture speak with absolute clarity to mankind?

No. Given that God is speaking to creatures as creatures, Scripture speaks with relative clarity (analogical), not absolute clarity (univocal). Accommodation entails clarity relative to purpose and audience, not absolute transparency.