We use language to describe God. However, Aquinas argues in _Summa Theologiae_ that we can only make **[analogical statements](https://web.archive.org/web/20180709090157/http://www.humanismandculture.com/thomas-aquinas-and-the-language-of-analogy)** about God, in which our language is incapable of truly grasping or describing God. And yet, God chose to reveal Himself partly through human language. Hence we have now Church dogmas like the Trinity. Thus, how is it possible to have True Knowledge expressed in words, and simultaneously sustain Aquinas' position that all out statements about God are always and everywhere analogical? Does it mean that in the end we just cannot grasp what our dogmas mean? This is to say, that Revelation about God's nature is in the end all mystery?

It is widely accepted that the Bible contains many [*accommodated*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(religion)) descriptions of God; the finite human mind cannot comprehend the infinite God, so he has revealed himself to us in ways which we can understand, even though the true reality of God transcends what the scriptures say. For example, most Christians believe that the scriptures teach [the immutability of God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Immutability) , so the times when the scriptures say God changed his mind (such as Exodus 32:14) are understood to be accommodations. The wrath of God is believed by many Protestants to be a real attribute of God, but an accommodation by many other Christians. The wrath of God is important because it forms part of the foundation of [penal substitutionary atonement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution) . What is the basis for believing that God's wrath is not an accommodation? Good answers will give exegetical and logical arguments why certain verses should not be interpreted as conveying only accommodated depictions of God's wrath.