\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.

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}
\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.
\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.

\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.
