cleanup

3 files changed, 183 insertions, 86 deletions

diff --git a/sum-chap-3.tex b/sum-chap-3.tex
index e9b4b12..4808408 100644
--- a/sum-chap-3.tex
+++ b/sum-chap-3.tex
@@ -1,46 +1,90 @@
 \setcounter{section}{2}
 \section{Revelation and knowledge of God}
-Knowledge of God is something personal, relational, and intimate: it's knowing some\emph{one} in addition to knowing some\emph{thing}. This knowing is dependent on God and his revelation. Revelation is a divine act, the human response is faith.
+Knowledge of God is something personal, relational, and intimate: it's knowing
+some\emph{one} in addition to knowing some\emph{thing}. This knowing is
+dependent on God and his revelation. Revelation is a divine act, the human
+response is faith.
 
-There is a distinction to be made between general and special \index{Revelation}revelation.
+There is a distinction to be made between general and
+special~\index{Revelation}revelation.
 
 \begin{table}[h!]
-    \centering
-    \begin{tabular}{r | l}
-        \textbf{General revelation} & \textbf{Special revelation}   \\\hline
-        Natural knowledge           & Revealed knowledge            \\
-        Creation, providence        & Redemptive acts / words       \\
-        Reason, intuition, conscience & Faith (via the Holy Spirit) \\
-        Natural theology            & Sacred theology
-    \end{tabular}
+	\centering
+	\begin{tabular}{r l}
+		\textbf{General revelation} & \textbf{Special revelation}   \\\hline
+		Natural knowledge           & Revealed knowledge            \\
+		Creation, providence        & Redemptive acts / words       \\
+		Reason, intuition, conscience & Faith (via the Holy Spirit) \\
+		Natural theology            & Sacred theology
+	\end{tabular}
 \end{table}
 
 \begin{description}
-    \item[General revelation] is\index{Revelation!General} the ``knowledge'' of God available for all to see. All people somehow know that there is a God, but some suppress his truth. While not mentioning it himself, Thomas Aquinas uses only what we now call general revelation in his \index{Theology!Natural}natural theological account of his five ways.
-
-        Some, like deists, say that general revelation alone is `enough'.
-
-    \item[Special revelation] refers\index{Revelation!Special} to God's disclosure of the divine identity and character by means of particular acts and words through Israel's history and culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ. This revelation is \emph{historical}, \emph{doctrinal} and \emph{experiential}.
-
-        Karl Barth: special revelation is like the \index{Word of God}Word of God in a broad sense: \index{Christ}Christ (the Word revealed), \index{Scripture}Scripture (the word written) and the \index{Church}Church (the word proclaimed).
-
-        Scripture is understood in different ways. Some say it is \index{Inerrancy}inerrant, meaning it is without error in all it addresses. Others say it is only \index{Infallibility}infallible, meaning that it doesn't fail to teach us what it intends to teach us. What you think depends on your theory of inspiration: \emph{poetic}, \emph{dictational} or \emph{organic}.
-
-        Some, like Karl Barth, say special revelation is fundamental in theology.
+		\item[General revelation] is\index{Revelation!General} the ``knowledge'' of
+			God available for all to see. All people somehow know that there is a
+			God, but some suppress his truth. While not mentioning it himself, Thomas
+			Aquinas uses only what we now call general revelation in his
+			\index{Theology!Natural}natural theological account of his five ways.
+
+			Some, like deists, say that general revelation alone is `enough'.
+
+		\item[Special revelation] refers\index{Revelation!Special} to God's
+			disclosure of the divine identity and character by means of particular
+			acts and words through Israel's history and culminating in the coming of
+			Jesus Christ. This revelation is \emph{historical}, \emph{doctrinal} and
+			\emph{experiential}.
+
+			Karl Barth: special revelation is like the \index{Word of God}Word of God
+			in a broad sense: \index{Christ}Christ (the Word revealed),
+			\index{Scripture}Scripture (the word written) and the
+			\index{Church}Church (the word proclaimed).
+
+			Scripture is understood in different ways. Some say it is
+			\index{Inerrancy}inerrant, meaning it is without error in all it
+			addresses. Others say it is only \index{Infallibility}infallible, meaning
+			that it doesn't fail to teach us what it intends to teach us. What you
+			think depends on your theory of inspiration: \emph{poetic},
+			\emph{dictational} or \emph{organic}.
+
+			Some, like Karl Barth, say special revelation is fundamental in theology.
 \end{description}
 
-The mainstream Christian tradition argues for both the necessity and the primacy of special revelation. But within this majority opinion, theologians have had differing estimates of the efficacy of general revelation. In descending order of value ascribed to general revelation: deists, \dots, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther -- Sobrino, Barth.
+The mainstream Christian tradition argues for both the necessity and the
+primacy of special revelation. But within this majority opinion, theologians
+have had differing estimates of the efficacy of general revelation. In
+descending order of value ascribed to general revelation: deists, \dots,
+Aquinas, Calvin, Luther / Sobrino, Barth.
 
 \bigskip
-Speaking of God is a delicate matter. Humans have a tendency to attribute human form or characteristics (\index{Anthropo\-morphism}anthropomorphism) or feelings, passions and sufferings (\index{Anthropo\-pathism}anthropopathism) to God/gods. But then what guarantee do we have that this is not mere projection?
-
-It has traditionally been held that God has revealed Himself in a way suitable for the human understanding at the time. This phenomenon is known as \index{Accommodation}accommodation. But then what is \emph{mere} accommodation and where do we find the real truth in, for example, Scripture?
-
-We cannot speak \emph{univocally} (in exactly the same sense) about God and humans, because we cannot reduce God to the human. On the other hand, speaking \emph{equivocally} (in a completely different sense) about God we would risk agnosticism, communicating no real knowledge of God any more. \index{Analogy}Analogy seeks a middle way between the two. There is a difference between an \qindex{Analogy!Analogia entis}analogy of being, between Creator and creation (more related to general revelation) and an \qindex{Analogy!Analogia fidei}analogy of faith which reflects on special revelation. The two approaches can complement each other. Analogy always has a positive and a negative aspect: it mentions a likeness and a dissimilarity.
-
-\question{Is it correct that we can only speak univocally \emph{or} equivocally about God, or is it possible to communicate knowledge of God without analogies at all?}
-
-\question{Is this a valid argument for \emph{not} speaking equivocally about God? If we agree that not speaking equivocally about God and creatures is a pitfall we must avoid, shouldn't we then simply accept that we \emph{cannot} communicate knowledge of God?}
-
-\index{Metaphor}Metaphors are extensively used to communicate knowledge of God, but it is inherent to metaphors that they can be ambiguous.
-
+Speaking of God is a delicate matter. Humans have a tendency to attribute human
+form or characteristics (\index{Anthropo\-morphism}anthropomorphism) or
+feelings, passions and sufferings (\index{Anthropo\-pathism}anthropopathism) to
+God/gods. But then what guarantee do we have that this is not mere projection?
+
+It has traditionally been held that God has revealed Himself in a way suitable
+for the human understanding at the time. This phenomenon is known as
+\index{Accommodation}accommodation. But then what is \emph{mere} accommodation
+and where do we find the real truth in, for example, Scripture?
+
+We cannot speak \emph{univocally} (in exactly the same sense) about God and
+humans, because we cannot reduce God to the human. On the other hand, speaking
+\emph{equivocally} (in a completely different sense) about God we would risk
+agnosticism, communicating no real knowledge of God any more.
+\index{Analogy}Analogy seeks a middle way between the two. There is a
+difference between an \qindex{Analogy!Analogia entis}analogy of being, between
+Creator and creation (more related to general revelation) and an
+\qindex{Analogy!Analogia fidei}analogy of faith which reflects on special
+revelation. The two approaches can complement each other. Analogy always has a
+positive and a negative aspect: it mentions a likeness and a dissimilarity.
+
+\question{Is it correct that we can only speak univocally \emph{or} equivocally
+about God, or is it possible to communicate knowledge of God without analogies
+at all?}
+
+\question{Is this a valid argument for \emph{not} speaking equivocally about
+God? If we agree that not speaking equivocally about God and creatures is a
+pitfall we must avoid, shouldn't we then simply accept that we \emph{cannot}
+communicate knowledge of God?}
+
+\index{Metaphor}Metaphors are extensively used to communicate knowledge of God,
+but it is inherent to metaphors that they can be ambiguous.
diff --git a/sum-chap-4.tex b/sum-chap-4.tex
index e14a937..0d59de2 100644
--- a/sum-chap-4.tex
+++ b/sum-chap-4.tex
@@ -1,29 +1,82 @@
 \setcounter{section}{3}
 \section{A tale of two theisms}
-Christian theology presupposes God's existence. It sets out to clarify \emph{who} God is and \emph{what} He is \emph{like}, not \emph{if} He is. Generally we can consider those holding a generalised concept of God and those with a distinctive trinitarian understanding.
+Christian theology presupposes God's existence. It sets out to clarify
+\emph{who} God is and \emph{what} He is \emph{like}, not \emph{if} He is.
+Generally we can consider those holding a generalised concept of God and those
+with a distinctive trinitarian understanding.
 
 \begin{description}
-    \item[Old Testament] Names are important\index{God!Names of} in the OT. Israelites share the common name \emph{El} with other Semitic cultures. It is combined with many other words, most often into \emph{Elohim}. But next to the general names the Israelites also have the name YHWH, with an original meaning along the lines of `I am' or `I shall be there as who I am': the name is a promise of God's presence.
+		\item[Old Testament] Names are important\index{God!Names of} in the OT.
+			Israelites share the common name \emph{El} with other Semitic cultures.
+			It is combined with many other words, most often into \emph{Elohim}. But
+			next to the general names the Israelites also have the name YHWH, with an
+			original meaning along the lines of `I am' or `I shall be there as who I
+			am': the name is a promise of God's presence.
 
-        Most striking in the OT is the development of \index{Monotheism}monotheism (Dt.~6:4, although originally this verse was an injunction to \index{Monolatry}monolatry, the \emph{worship} of one god). Monotheism implies \index{Universality}universality: God's love and faithfulness are not just for Israel, but extend to the whole of creation.
+			Most striking in the OT is the development of
+			\index{Monotheism}monotheism (Dt.~6:4, although originally this verse was
+			an injunction to \index{Monolatry}monolatry, the \emph{worship} of one
+			god). Monotheism implies \index{Universality}universality: God's love and
+			faithfulness are not just for Israel, but extend to the whole of
+			creation.
 
-    \item[New Testament] The NT presupposes the OT conception of God, but adds the \index{Trinity}\qindex{Theism!Trinitarian}trinitarian understanding.\question{Is it correct to ascribe the idea of the Trinity to the whole New Testament, or are there writings that do not share this idea? Did Christ have this concept? Does even Paul have this concept unambiguously?} This does not break monotheism: there is one, true Creator God, but this Creator God is the Father, Son and Spirit together.
+		\item[New Testament] The NT presupposes the OT conception of God, but adds
+			the \index{Trinity}\qindex{Theism!Trinitarian}trinitarian
+			understanding.\question{Is it correct to ascribe the idea of the Trinity
+			to the whole New Testament, or are there writings that do not share this
+			idea? Did Christ have this concept? Does even Paul have this concept
+			unambiguously?} This does not break monotheism: there is one, true
+			Creator God, but this Creator God is the Father, Son and Spirit together.
 
-        In the NT, \emph{Theos} refers to both \emph{El} and \emph{Elohim}.\question{A proper discussion of the Greek names of God in the OT would involve the LXX.} \emph{Kyrios} is the typical translation of the tetragrammaton and means \emph{Lord} -- it is usually associated with Christ the Son. From a Christian point of view, the Trinity is the fulfilment of the promise of God's presence.
+			In the NT, \emph{Theos} refers to both \emph{El} and
+			\emph{Elohim}.\question{A proper discussion of the Greek names of God in
+			the OT would involve the LXX.} \emph{Kyrios} is the typical translation
+			of the tetragrammaton and means \emph{Lord} -- it is usually associated
+			with Christ the Son. From a Christian point of view, the Trinity is the
+			fulfilment of the promise of God's presence.
 \end{description}
 
-Classical theism\index{Theism!Classical} is a particular understanding of \emph{God as One} that, together with the trinitarian conception, emerged in the early church in discussion with Hellenistic culture. In the Roman empire, Christian apologists used it to clearly distinguish themselves from polytheism and e.g. emperor worship.
+Classical theism\index{Theism!Classical} is a particular understanding of
+\emph{God as One} that, together with the trinitarian conception, emerged in
+the early church in discussion with Hellenistic culture. In the Roman empire,
+Christian apologists used it to clearly distinguish themselves from polytheism
+and e.g. emperor worship.
 
-While there are differences with Greek theism (the idea of creation \index{Creation!Ex nihilo}\emph{ex nihilo}), Christian theism is largely compatible with it, especially considering the \index{Divine attributes}divine attributes (both trinitarian and metaphysical; there is tension between the two).
+While there are differences with Greek theism (the idea of creation
+\index{Creation!Ex nihilo}\emph{ex nihilo}), Christian theism is largely
+compatible with it, especially considering the \index{Divine attributes}divine
+attributes (both trinitarian and metaphysical; there is tension between the
+two).
 
-Medieval \index{Scholasticism}scholasticism formalised Greek theism. Anselm deduces the range of classical theistic attributes as great-making properties of divine being.
+Medieval \index{Scholasticism}scholasticism formalised Greek theism. Anselm
+deduces the range of classical theistic attributes as great-making properties
+of divine being.
 
-Aquinas sums up both the content and method of the core philosophical theism: human reason and philosophy, when properly applied, seem to be able to reason to something we call `God'. He describes the \emph{via negativa} and \emph{positiva}, different ways to get to divine attributes. The core project of Aquinas is to show that pure human reason is not enough and that special revelation is needed to arrive at things as trinitarian theism.
+Aquinas sums up both the content and method of the core philosophical theism:
+human reason and philosophy, when properly applied, seem to be able to reason
+to something we call `God'. He describes the \emph{via negativa} and
+\emph{positiva}, different ways to get to divine attributes. The core project
+of Aquinas is to show that pure human reason is not enough and that special
+revelation is needed to arrive at things as trinitarian theism.
 
 \medskip
-(Philosophical) \index{Atheism}atheism is a modern phenomenon -- before, people only denied God's \emph{relevance} but not his \emph{existence}. Developments in \index{Science}science facilitated \qindex{Atheism!Scientific}\emph{scientific atheism} as scientific explanation replaced divine explanation. \qindex{Atheism!Humanistic}\emph{Humanistic atheism} arises from the \index{Enlightenment}Enlightenment's emphasis on the authority of reason and human autonomy. \qindex{Atheism!Apathetic}\emph{Apathetic atheism} is an atheism of indifference. \qindex{Atheism!Protest} is a passionate remonstrance against God in view of the fractured human condition.
+(Philosophical) \index{Atheism}atheism is a modern phenomenon -- before, people
+only denied God's \emph{relevance} but not his \emph{existence}. Developments
+in \index{Science}science facilitated
+\qindex{Atheism!Scientific}\emph{scientific atheism} as scientific explanation
+replaced divine explanation. \qindex{Atheism!Humanistic}\emph{Humanistic
+atheism} arises from the \index{Enlightenment}Enlightenment's emphasis on the
+authority of reason and human autonomy.
+\qindex{Atheism!Apathetic}\emph{Apathetic atheism} is an atheism of
+indifference. \qindex{Atheism!Protest} is a passionate remonstrance against God
+in view of the fractured human condition.
 
-The claim is that much of modern atheism is a reaction to a conception of God closer to classical than trinitarian theism. Aquinas and others gave importance to the concept of the omnipotent, etc. God. This idea leads to theological determinism, which provoked most protest from atheism.
-
-Trinitarian theism, in fact, answers the complaints from atheists. Classical theism, being a natural theology, should have a limited role in Christian theology. In light of the biblical text, a number of divine attributes may need to be revisited if we give importance to trinitarian theism.
+The claim is that much of modern atheism is a reaction to a conception of God
+closer to classical than trinitarian theism. Aquinas and others gave importance
+to the concept of the omnipotent, etc. God. This idea leads to theological
+determinism, which provoked most protest from atheism.
 
+Trinitarian theism, in fact, answers the complaints from atheists. Classical
+theism, being a natural theology, should have a limited role in Christian
+theology. In light of the biblical text, a number of divine attributes may need
+to be revisited if we give importance to trinitarian theism.
diff --git a/summary.tex b/summary.tex
index dc5cedf..72785e1 100644
--- a/summary.tex
+++ b/summary.tex
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@
 \author{Camil Staps}
 
 \usepackage{dogmatics}
-\showquestionsfalse
+\showquestionsfalse%
 
 \usepackage[top=2cm, bottom=3cm, inner=3.6cm, outer=3.6cm, heightrounded, marginparwidth=2cm, marginparsep=0.6cm]{geometry}
 \usepackage[hidelinks]{hyperref}
@@ -14,14 +14,14 @@
 
 \makeatletter
 % Align marginpars to inside; doesn't work yet
-\let\oldmarginpar\marginpar
+\let\oldmarginpar\marginpar%
 \renewcommand*{\marginpar}[1]{\oldmarginpar{\color{black}\if@firstcolumn\raggedleft\fi#1}}
 %\renewcommand*{\marginpar}[1]{\oldmarginpar{\color{black}\raggedright#1}}
 % Smaller font in marginpars
 \long\def\@ympar#1{%
-  \@savemarbox\@marbox{\scriptsize #1}%
-  \global\setbox\@currbox\copy\@marbox
-  \@xympar}
+	\@savemarbox\@marbox{\scriptsize #1}%
+	\global\setbox\@currbox\copy\@marbox%
+	\@xympar}
 \makeatother
 
 % Indexing
@@ -32,46 +32,46 @@
 % But in next column; http://tex.stackexchange.com/a/27481/23992
 \makeatletter
 \renewenvironment{theindex}
-  {\vfill\eject\section*{\indexname}%
-   \@mkboth{\MakeUppercase\indexname}%
-           {\MakeUppercase\indexname}%
-   \thispagestyle{plain}\parindent\z@
-   \parskip\z@ \@plus .3\p@\relax
-   \columnseprule \z@
-   \columnsep 35\p@
-   \let\item\@idxitem}
-  {}
+	{\vfill\eject\section*{\indexname}%
+		\@mkboth{\MakeUppercase\indexname}%
+		        {\MakeUppercase\indexname}%
+		\thispagestyle{plain}\parindent\z@
+		\parskip\z@ \@plus .3\p@\relax
+		\columnseprule \z@
+		\columnsep 35\p@
+		\let\item\@idxitem}
+	{}
 \makeatother
 
 % Show index entries in the margin notes; see http://tex.stackexchange.com/q/236373/23992
 \usepackage{xparse}
 \renewcommand\qindex[1]{\oldindex{#1}}
-\let\oldindex\index
+\let\oldindex\index%
 \renewcommand{\index}[1]{%
-  \oldindex{#1}%
-  \marginpar{\bfseries\splitentry{#1}}%
+		\oldindex{#1}%
+		\marginpar{\bfseries\splitentry{#1}}%
 }
-\NewDocumentCommand{\splitentry}{ >{\SplitArgument{1}{!}} m }
- {%
-  \splitentryEM#1%
- }
+\NewDocumentCommand{\splitentry}{	>{\SplitArgument{1}{!}}	m	}
+	{%
+		\splitentryEM#1%
+	}
 \NewDocumentCommand{\splitentryEM}{mm}
- {%
-  \splitentryBAR{#1}%
-  \IfValueT{#2}{, \splitentryBAR{#2}}%
- }
-\NewDocumentCommand{\splitentryBAR}{ >{\SplitArgument{1}{|}} m }
- {%
-  \dosplitentryBAR#1%
- }
-\NewDocumentCommand{\dosplitentryBAR}{ >{\SplitArgument{1}{@}} m m }
- {%
-  \splitentryAT#1%
- }
-\NewDocumentCommand{\splitentryAT}{ m m }
- {
-  \IfNoValueTF{#2}{#1}{#2}%
- }
+	{%
+		\splitentryBAR{#1}%
+		\IfValueT{#2}{,	\splitentryBAR{#2}}%
+	}
+\NewDocumentCommand{\splitentryBAR}{	>{\SplitArgument{1}{|}}	m	}
+	{%
+		\dosplitentryBAR#1%
+	}
+\NewDocumentCommand{\dosplitentryBAR}{	>{\SplitArgument{1}{@}}	m	m	}
+	{%
+		\splitentryAT#1%
+	}
+\NewDocumentCommand{\splitentryAT}{	m	m	}
+	{
+		\IfNoValueTF{#2}{#1}{#2}%
+	}
 
 % Title size
 \usepackage{titlesec}
@@ -84,9 +84,9 @@
 \input{sum-chap-3.tex}
 \input{sum-chap-4.tex}
 
-\vfill\eject
+\vfill\eject%
 \begin{multicols}{3}
-    \printindex
+	\printindex
 \end{multicols}
 
 \end{document}