diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'sum-chap-3.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | sum-chap-3.tex | 2 |
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/sum-chap-3.tex b/sum-chap-3.tex index 54fdc84..e9b4b12 100644 --- a/sum-chap-3.tex +++ b/sum-chap-3.tex @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Speaking of God is a delicate matter. Humans have a tendency to attribute human 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 \index{Analogy!Analogia entis}analogy of being, between Creator and creation (more related to general revelation) and an \index{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. +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?} |