Necessity of Anthropomorphism

Bavinck argues that without anthropomorphism, we have only skepticism and agnosticism: “Those . . . who contest our right to use anthropomorphisms, thereby in princiuple deny the possibility that God in fact reveals himself in his creatures, are logically bound to proceed to the denial of creation, and are finally left with nothing more than an eternal sualism between God and the world, the infinite and the finite. For if our calling God by anthropomorphic names implies a finitization of God, this applies to a much greater extent to God’s self-revelation in creation. As the infinite One, GOd is then powerless to produce another form of being outside of his own being. The world is in no way a revealation of God but solely an act of divine self-concealment. Humanity, then, is God’s polar opposite and not related to him in the way of kinship. And God is an eternal abyss . . . , a nameless silence . . . , to himself as well as to us humans. Naturally, no knowledge of God is any longer possible either. If anthropomorphic, creaturely names violate God’s being, we may not call him by any name and have to be totally silent. For then any name by which we might wish to refer to him is an act of defamation, an assault of God’s majesty, blasphemy.”