1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
|
\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.
|
