|
BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D
Instead of
complaining that God has hidden himself,
you could render thanks to him
that he has revealed so much of himself.
Blaise Pascal (1623 1662)
There is a book
who runs may read,
Which heavenly truth imparts,
And all the lore its scholars need,
Pure eyes and Christian hearts.
The works of God, above, below,
Within us and around,
Are pages in that book, to show
How God Himself is found
Thou who hast given me eyes to see
And love this sight so fair,
Give me a heart to find out Thee,
And read Thee everywhere.
John Keble (1792 1866)
As Donald Bloesch concludes his chapter on "The Primacy of Scripture"
[1] he makes two significant statements.
"Evangelical Theology in its most authentic sense will indeed be a theology of
the Word of God. At the same time evangelical theology will be a theology under
the Word of God."
If these statements are true, and I believe they are, then no more important and
determinative introductory question can be raised than, what is the nature of
revelation? Is it only a dynamic thing? Is it a process that takes place in
personal experience but never a rationally identifiable body of cognitive data?
Or, is it merely a product embodied in impersonal propositional statements?
It is my conviction that these two options both represent extremes held, on the
one hand, by most contemporary nonevangelical theologians and, on the other, by
some fundamentalists. The fact of the case is that God reveals himself, unveils
himself, makes himself known in a variety of ways.
Revelation may be both process (Eph. 3:2 5) and product (Rev. 1:1). God is
revealed in the ways he makes himself known, in what he makes known about
himself, and in that knowledge as it is personally appropriated.
Revelation is better spoken of as polydimensional rather than propositional in the strict sense, in that it connotes the event of God speaking as well as the truth of what is spoken: this truth, moreover, takes various linguistic forms including the propositional. [2]
It is propositional but not exclusively so. The maintenance of this balance
is an elusive thing and worthy of the attention being given to it by
contemporary evangelical theologians. As he struggles with making a biblically
appropriate statement about revelation Bloesch notes some important cautions
regarding what he calls the primacy of scripture. It must be viewed as having
primacy over church tradition without destroying the rightful place of the
church in the process; it must be given priority over personal religious
experience while preserving its importance; and it is to be viewed as having
primacy over culture. He further cautions that the final authority is God as
found in Jesus Christ rather than the Scriptures themselves.
[3]
Nonetheless, even with the scrupulous quest for balance and the helpful insights
along the way, it seems to me that Bloesch ends up a little left of center. He
is concerned, along with Bavinck, Barth, and Berkouwer to avoid equating the
biblical text with divine revelation (p. 52). He wants to retain a doctrine of
inerrancy but yet allow for faults in the record (pp. 65 70).
It seems to me that a happier synthesis, a more balanced
statement is found in the recent theological statements of Millard Erickson
[4] and. Carl F. H. Henry.
[5] After affirming that "... propositions about
God need not be impersonal", Erickson states
If revelation includes propositional truths, then it is of such a nature that it can be preserved. It can be written down or inscripturated. And this written record, to the extent that it is an accurate reproduction of the original revelation, is also by derivation revelation and entitled to be called that. [6]
Henry openly acknowledges that revelation is both personal and propositional at one and the same time.
Revelation is personal communication. Its personal originator is God, and persons are its recipients; it involves personal thought and speech as when God addresses Abraham and Moses; sometimes, in addition to God's direct address it involves also personal agents as bearers of revelation. [7]
Later on, in discussing the Bible as propositional revelation he says,
Sometimes it is said that God's self-revelation takes two forms; one, that of propositional revelation... and the other that of sheer personal presence. In this latter case the revealing of the person is distinguished from the revealing of truths about the person. The revelation of the living God, it is said, surely cannot be exhausted in any system of propositional truths, however comprehensive. Since God is supernatural Spirit, and transcends our finite knowledge, which as such can never exhaust the Infinite, there is far more to God, we are told, than what can be stated in propositional terms about him. Here the objection to propositional revelation stems from a confusion of ontology and epistemology. God is indeed ontologically other than man—and would survive the destruction of all mankind and the evaporation of all truths humanly cognized about him—but we know even this as revealed propositional truth. [8]
Rather than
viewing revelation as either personal or propositional or as
both personal and propositional, it may be more biblically correct to
view it as personally propositional.
Revelation in Contemporary Protestant Theology
The need for balance will be more evident when today's two basic non
evangelical views of revelation are considered. As Pinnock notes regarding
these views, "revelation bereft of content is the bane of contemporary
theology." [9]
Revelation as Personal Encounter
The most widely held view of revelation in non evangelical circles is that already alluded to above. It is variously described as "personal address" (Bultmann) or "personal encounter" (Brunner). John Baillie stated,
From a very early time in the history of the church, the tendency had manifested itself to equate divine revelation with a body of information, which God has communicated to man... God does not give us information by communication; He gives us Himself in communion. [10]
Following the same line of thought William Temple wrote:
There is no such thing as revealed truth. These are truths of revelation, that is to say, propositions which express the results of correct thinking concerning revelation, but these are not themselves revealed. What is offered to man's apprehension in any specific revelation is not truth concerning God but the living God Himself. [11]
William Hordern, commenting on Karl Barth's view of revelation, explains why a view of revelation as propositional is unacceptable to the existential thinker:
The gulf which Barth finds between God and man, time and eternity, is the gulf dug by man's sin. Because of sin, man's knowledge or power cannot take him to God; God must come to man, for God always has the initiative. Man's search for God never finds God; it finds an idol. It is only because of God's search for man that men may have communion with God. Barth is anxious to emphasize that man can never have any kind of control over God; God cannot be an object of our knowledge. He is eternally the subject who is known only when and where He chooses to speak. God has spoken not in nature or history, but only in Jesus Christ.... Because God is the living God, Barth warns against identifying the Word of God with the words of the Bible.... The words of the Bible are simply tokens ... but the Word of God comes through these tokens.... Revelation is thus not knowledge about God; it is God Himself acting in man. [12]
In further explanation, Preus writes,
This view, which leans heavily on existentialism, makes revelation always contemporary. It emphasizes the dynamic nature of revelation almost to the exclusion of the informative and noetic nature and purpose of revelation…. To varying degrees, this position cuts off revelation from history, from God's great acts of redemption, which are in our history. Bultmann, for instance, goes so far as to say that there is no factuality behind any of the redemptive "myths" connected with Christ's activity recounted in the New Testament. The only historical and real referent he has for revelation is the so-called Kerygma, which is merely the theology of the early church. [13]
When used of liberal and neo-orthodox theology the term existential designates… the place of personal commitment in an act of faith. Existential faith believes with inward passion; it is concerned with the relationship between the self and the object of faith…. Existential faith cannot assume the role of spectator for it must unite itself with the object of faith in spiritual commitment. God is a person and a person is known only in and through an act of self-surrender. [14]
In his critique of this view of revelation Pinnock notes that because of the "...strong depreciation of the noetic content of revelation... there is a crisis of content." He goes on to state that "... in this theory there is a meeting without knowing and, consequently, no way whereby errant human notions about revelation may be tested and corrected." [15] In addition, there is a "crisis of meaningfulness. Revelation claims are not self-validating." [16]
Revelation
as Found in the Past Mighty Acts of God
Whereas the first of these two views is characteristic
of contemporary non evangelical systematic theologians,
The second popular view concerning revelation and the Bible is advanced primarily by those concerning themselves with biblical theology (but not Bultmann). The advocates of this view seek to do justice to the historical aspect of revelation and to avoid the subjectivity of the neo-orthodox position. They center revelation in God's past mighty acts [17] …. To them the Bible is only a record of revelation, and an errant one at that. Many of those events recorded in Scripture, even such important events as the Exodus and the Resurrection, did not happen as the Bible depicts them, for the Bible gives witness only to what the Israelites or the early church believed concerning God's words and acts. Thus we cannot know whether any of these events happened in our space and time. [18]
When thought through carefully, this view lacks credibility. It calls for a kind of faith that is foreign to the biblical record and which would be better designated as credulity.
In essence, the viewpoint seems to be that normal historical occurrences were creatively transformed by faith into "the acts of God"; in which case it is something of an exaggeration to say "God acted in history" when all that is meant is that some men imagined He did. Revelation refers rather to a psychological event than to miraculous divine action. [19]
Weakness
of These Views of Revelation
These views may be criticized in the following ways:
An
Unreliable Witness
While holding that the Bible is a witness to revelation, since it is
viewed as containing errors it cannot be viewed as a reliable witness.
Can
Lead to a form of Mysticism
By minimizing the noetic side of revelation they
lead to a form of mysticism. Mysticism is that which "finds the core
of religion in an inward identity or communion which is ultimately
indifferent to and negates the external."
[20] This, in turn, removes them from the realm of
historical verifiability thus taking away any objective criteria for
evaluation and allowing for endless variations of religious experience
that may not be challenged.
An
Untrustworthy Record
They ask us to accept the trustworthiness of a spiritual experience
based ultimately upon the testimony of an untrustworthy record.
By rejecting any concept of propositional revelation they understand
... the significance of words and speech by regarding them as
something less than personal.
In fact speech is one of the most characteristic
activities of persons by means of which personal relationships are
made possible…. To deprive God of the opportunity to speak to his
creatures, using words that they can understand, would be to reduce
him to a subpersonal level, something less than the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Logically, it would also involve the conclusion
that we cannot pray to him and address him in speech as well.
[21]
It is now time to consider what it is we do mean by divine revelation.
A
Definition of Revelation
The doctrine of revelation is that aspect of theology which deals with God
making known to men his divine person and divine truth related thereto that
would otherwise be unknown.
It will be helpful to distinguish revelation from certain other areas of
truth. First, it should be distinguished from illumination, which is the
enlightening work of the Holy Spirit whereby he shows what is already
there. That is, illumination does not involve new truth whereas revelation
does.
Again, revelation may be distinguished from
inspiration. Revelation is the communication of truth from God to man,
whereas inspiration is the transference of truth by divine influence into
written language forms, which others may understand. Charles Hodge summed
it up when he said,
The object of revelation is the communication of knowledge. The object or design of inspiration is to secure infallibility in teaching…. The effect of revelation is to render its recipient wiser. The effect of inspiration is to preserve him from error in teaching. [22]
Categories
of Revelation
We will consider revelation under the sub headings of general and
special. No antithesis or competition is intended between the two
categories. They are, rather, complementary to one another. The first is
inadequate and incomplete without the second.
These terms emphasize the extent and purpose of revelation. The terms
natural and supernatural revelation are sometimes used instead but are not
really exact equivalents and may even be misleading. They emphasize the
mode (not the source, since all revelation is ultimately from God) of
revelation.
General Revelation
In considering the subject of general revelation two questions must be
considered. Is there such a thing as general revelation? Is it
possible to develop a natural theology from the data supplied by
general revelation alone? To these questions I would answer yes to the
first and no to the second.
Preliminary Observations regarding Natural Theology and General
Revelation
It is an accepted premise in some theological circles that
natural theology may be developed quite apart from the Bible,
that is, on the basis of general revelation alone. Because of his
strong reaction to the spiritual bankruptcy of the liberal
theology in which he was raised and trained, Barth not only
rejected the idea of a natural theology but also of general
revelation with which it was so closely linked.
The scriptures, however, support the idea of general revelation
throughout. It is quite striking to note that in each of the six
passages we will consider general and special revelation are both
juxtaposed and distinguished as separate and real entities.
Psalm 19 has three strophes, which present a statement of
the developing appreciation of the psalmist for God's revelatory
work. Verses one to six unmistakably speak of a general
revelation of God's glory and handiwork in the natural creation.
There is a definite message about God in this revelation although
it may be a wordless one. The problem of this passage lies in the
appropriate translation and subsequent interpretation of verse
three. Barth insisted that it negated the apparent teaching of
the first two verses, reading, as in the New American Standard
Bible, "There is no speech, there are no words; their voice is
not heard." Others see this verse as a declaration of the
universality of the general revelation of God, reading, as in the
New International Version, "There is no speech or language where
their voice is not heard."
A better way to understand the passage, however, may be to see
verses one and two as a declaration of the truth of general
revelation; verse three as a statement of its limitation as
compared to the special revelation to which he will refer in
verses seven and following—namely its imprecision because it
deals in unexplained picture language; and verses four through
six as a statement regarding its universality.
The second strophe, verses seven through eleven, gives a
magnificent tribute to the beauty, character, and power of the
"law of the LORD," the written word of God. In contrast to the
pantomime of the general revelation this special revelation of
God gives revival, wisdom, joy, light, warning, and reward to his
servant. General revelation reveals knowledge but special
revelation explains and applies it.
Finally, in the third strophe, the psalmist
gives personal response to the truth he has just written. He bows
in contrite prayer before the God who has thus revealed himself
and worships him.
The second passage is found in John 1:9, which has its own
peculiar interpretive problems. I tend to agree with Leon Morris
who sees "coming into the world" as modifying "light" and thus a
reference to the incarnation. [23]
One thing, however, is very clear. There is some sense in which
every person is enlightened, at least to the point of some
accountability.
Acts 14:8 17 is the third passage in which the idea of general
revelation is presented, especially verses fifteen through
seventeen. While Paul's main point is that they had good news
(gospel) for those who were mistaken in their view of God, at the
same time he declares that even in their error God had maintained
a witness to himself through the elements, the seasons, and his
supply of food and gladness.
Later, in Athens (Acts 17:22 31) Paul again appeals to general
revelation in his message to the Areopagus. He indicates
that their unknown god is indeed the God of reality. He is the
creator and ruler of all things as well as being the source of
all life. Paul then appeals to them on the basis of the fact that
God had given them certain benefits with the aim of drawing them
to himself (vv. 26 27). He also states that some of their own
(pagan) poets, apart from special revelation, have grasped
certain elementary truths about God (v. 28). With all this as
background Paul then moves from general to special revelation as
he urges them to repentance on the basis of the future judging
work of the risen Savior (vv. 30 31).
The fifth significant passage is Romans 1:16 20. In verses
sixteen and seventeen the apostle speaks of a revelation of God's
righteousness and power unto salvation that is contained in the
gospel. This involves "everyone who believes." In contrast,
verses eighteen to twenty speak of a revelation of God's wrath
against godless and unrighteous men who suppress the truth.
How can these, many of whom have never heard the gospel, be held
accountable? Paul offers a three layered basis, all of which
points to the availability to all of God's general revelation. He
says that what may be known of God (apart from special
revelation) is evident in them; that this is true because
God manifested it to them; and this is true because since
creation the invisible qualities of eternal power and divine
nature have been displayed in the things he made (the natural
creation). The result is that all mankind is left without excuse.
Our final passage is Romans 2:12 15 and introduces yet another
dimension to our understanding of general revelation. There are
those who are blessed with the stewardship of the law, an aspect
of God's special revelation. Theirs is a particular
responsibility growing therefrom. At the same time, those without
special revelation still have some vestige of what the law
requires in their hearts and thus a conscience, which accuses or
excuses them. As Ladd has noted,
God has implanted in all men a moral instinct that gives them a sense of right and wrong…. Paul does not mean to say that conscience is an infallible guide in all questions or that conscience is a guide equal to the Law. He only means to say that all men have conscience, which gives them a sense of moral values, and that pagans will be held accountable by God for that knowledge. [24]
In light of the accumulated data from these passages of Scripture the answer to our first question must be that there is such a thing as general revelation.
Does it follow, then, that a natural theology is forthcoming from this revelation? Another way to ask the question is, does fallen man have the ability to reason his way to a correct knowledge of God on the basis of the natural creation? Those who answer "yes" to this question must be either Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian in their theology because
The core of natural theology is the idea that it is possible, without a prior commitment of faith to the beliefs of Christianity, and without relying upon any special authority, such as an institution (the church) or a document (the Bible), to come to a genuine knowledge of God on the basis of reason alone. [25]
No one who holds to total depravity could accept a natural theology. Henry cogently remarks that
...neither Scripture nor human experience warrants the notion that, as a recipient of God's general revelation, man in sin can translate that revelation into undiluted truth about God, that is, into a "natural theology." God declares that his general revelation to man has a wholly different outcome…. The Bible connects the universal or general revelation of God not with "natural theology" but with man's guilt (Rom. 1:20). [26]
Several Affirmations Concerning General Revelation
What, then, may we affirm about general revelation?
Its Nature
First of all, as to its nature, general revelation is based on creation, is addressed to men as intelligent creatures, and is, therefore, accessible to all men. As a result of sin men are no longer able to read and interpret this revelation correctly.
General revelation is adapted to man as man, and special revelation to man as sinner. But inasmuch as the sinner is still a person, general revelation as well as special revelation remains a vital concern of the unregenerate person. [27]
Its Sources
Secondly the sources of general revelation are described by Berkhof as...those active manifestations of the perception and consciousness of man which come to him in the constitution of the human mind (Acts 17:28; Rom. 2:14 15), the whole framework of nature (Ps. 19:1 6; Rom. 1:18 20), and the course of God's providential government (John. 1:9; Acts 14:15 17; 17:26 27). [28]
Its Content
Thirdly, its content is determined by its sources. In general revelation God's glory (Ps 19:1 ff.); power (Rom. 1:19 20); godhood (Rom. 1:19 20); goodness (Acts 14:17); and orderliness (e.g., his providential government of the universe, cf. Col. 1:17) are seen.
Its Purpose
Fourthly, the purpose of general revelation is seen in such passages as John 1:9; Acts 14:17; and Romans 1:18 32. It is evident from these passages that the purpose is to provide man with sufficient light about God to make him [man] responsible. With this light man is left guilty before God, that is, without excuse.
Its Significant Limitations
Finally, because of its nature it has certain significant limitations. The knowledge gained thereby is not unto salvation for it does not reveal Christ. Since nothing of God's love and grace is found in general revelation the knowledge received at this level, though originally from God, does not convey to man an adequate and reliable picture of God and spiritual things.
Special Revelation
Preliminary Observations regarding Special Revelation
Before giving a summary of the doctrine of special revelation it is well to remind ourselves of some of its basic characteristics. It is not intended to be encyclopedic and consequently, as Erickson notes, "The objective of special revelation was relational" and "consequently, the information revealed is often quite selective." [29]
While it deals with the transcendent, because of man's finitude, it does so through ordinary human conventions such as human language, human experience and, in the incarnation, a human being. Because the intent of special revelation is the communication of eternal verities rather than their obfuscation, God uses analogical language to facilitate the communicative process.God draws upon those elements in man's universe of knowledge that can serve as a likeness of or partially convey the truth in the divine realm. His revelation employs analogical language, which is midway between universal and equivocal language. In univocal usage, a term is employed in only one sense. In equivocal usage, a term poses completely different meanings…. As we are using the term analogically, we mean "qualitatively the same"; in other words the difference is one of degree rather than of kind or genus. God is powerful as man is powerful, but much more so. When we say that God knows, we have the same meaning in mind as when we say that man knows—but while man knows something God knows everything. [30]
The Implications of Special Revelation
The implications of this are absolutely fundamental to an evangelical system of theology. It means, among other things, that when the text says that Jesus turned water to wine, healed a blind man, or raised Lazarus from the dead that this is precisely what happened.
It means that the words recording the virgin birth, the death, and the bodily resurrection are to be taken at face value. And, it further means that when the scriptures state that God loves us, that Christ's death was for our sin, that he is now preparing a place for us and will return to take us there we are to take those words as having the same meaning that they would have in ordinary language, yet with the added dimension that they have the character of God to back them up. Thus, the supernatural acts of God, the theanthropic person and work of Jesus Christ and the promises of God to his people all relate to the world of space and time.
Several Affirmations Regarding Special Revelation
Its Nature
As to its nature special revelation rests on the basis of re creation, is addressed to men as sinners with a view to their redemption, and can be fully understood only by the spiritual man.
Its Source
It is sourced in Jesus Christ, the living Word (John 1:1, 14; Heb. 1:1 2) and in the holy scriptures, the written Word of God. [31] Since all we know of the living Word is contained within the written Word special revelation is objective, factual, final and complete as far as God's intention for us is concerned. That is, it is not ongoing.
It is "objective" in that it is not dependent upon personal experience for its validity. It relates to that which is external to the subject and thus is verifiable by normal historical criteria (although not necessarily reproducible in the usual scientific sense).
By "factual" we mean that special revelation relates to that which is real, which accords with truth and may be apprehended at the cognitive level. The term "final" indicates that it is not subject to alteration or change. It is not yet to be supplemented or supplanted by another revelation.
In saying that it is "complete" we affirm that it contains all the information, which God intends for us to have, and by stating that "it is not ongoing" we mean to say that special revelation ended with the close of the canon.
Every cultic form of Christianity and every aberrant form of religion is based in one way or another upon a rejection of these principles. Mormonism may serve as an example of what we mean by this. In an advertisement in the July 1979 issue of Reader's Digest entitled "What Mormons Mean by 'Revelation'" the following is found:Essentially, they mean God showing man what's right and good. But they believe revelations come in many forms: Perhaps as conclusions reached after long, intensive searching; perhaps as instant inspirations, or as gradual inner answers to prayer and meditation.
Such revelations, Mormons believe, come to those who love God, follow His commandments—and who ask His guidance…. They believe that men and women are receiving revelations of His loving will and wisdom every day…. One of the basic "Articles of Faith" of their religion proclaims, "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
Both scripture and reason support the need for a closed canon. In Galatians 1:8 12 we are told that because Paul's message came by revelation from God anything that adds to, subtracts from, or modifies it in any way is anathema (accursed). The gospel is a finished product which God will not allow to be changed. Although it is not as clear as the Galatians passage, the message of Hebrews 1:1 2 is based upon the same underlying premise. The author contrasts the open-endedness and variety of God's message through the Old Testament prophets with the singular focus and finality of his message in his Son. The Son is God's last word.
Again, in Jude 3 the message is clear. Jude appeals to his readers to contend for the UNDERLINE faith, the body of doctrine, which constitutes God's revelation to man, which was delivered to the saints once for all (hapax). This allows for no revisions.
In addition to the injunctions of scripture the following dangers of an open canon must be noted. 1) An open canon removes all possibility of objectivity from religious faith and experience. 2) It allows for the validity of any and every religious experience by removing it from the control of the canon. 3) It destroys all possibility of distinguishing between God's and Satan's voice.
Finally, it must be acknowledged that for those who crown indiscriminate religious experience as king the above noted objections will have no meaning. If for the sake of argument, however, it be granted that all experiences including those that are mutually exclusive are religiously valid for this life (and they most certainly are not if God exists and has spoken to man) they provide no hope for the life to come.
Throughout history God has used various means at various times to convey his special revelation. Some of these have been Theophanies (especially the Angel of Yahweh in the Old Testament); direct communications (Gen. 2:16); Urim and Thummin (Num. 27:21); dreams (Num. 12:6) visions (Isa. 1:1); some unexplained method of inner communication to the prophets and writers of scripture (2 Pet. 1:21); and miracles (cf. John 2:11 and 20:30 31).
In these last two passages the use of the term semeion should be particularly noted. The term refers to an instructive display of the divine authority and credentials. When used of a miracle, as it is here, it emphasizes that the important thing is the spiritual significance back of the miracle rather than the miracle itself.
Its Content
The content of special revelation is God's power (John 3:2, miracles; Eph. 1:19 20, resurrection); God's wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24, 30—especially in redemption); God's glory (John 1:14); God's life (1 John 1:1 3—especially new life through Christ); and God's love (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 1 John 3:16). The supreme manifestation of special revelation is God's saving grace (John 1:17; Eph. 2:8 9). This manifestation of God's saving grace in his revealing work involves not merely intellectual acknowledgement of historical fact (although it is that) but also transformation and redemption of the entire man. It involves both grace and truth (John 1:17). Special revelation involves Christ as "the way" and "the life" as well as Christ as "the truth" (John 14:6). Thus special revelation involves both verbal and propositional record of historical fact and truth growing out of redemptive acts.
Before giving several biblical examples of this "both...and" statement a word of explanation regarding the meaning of "propositional" as used here is in order.When we speak of propositional revelation we are not, however, referring to the obvious fact that the Bible, like other literature, is written in sentences or logically formed statements. The Bible depicts God's very revelation as meaningful, objectively intelligible disclosure. We mean by propositional revelation that God supernaturally communicated his revelation to chosen spokesmen in the express form of cognitive truths, and that the inspired prophetic-apostolic proclamation reliably articulates these truths in sentences that are not internally contradictory. [32]
The "both…and" character of special revelation may be illustrated from the following passages. Notice in each case the beautiful combination of deed and word—of divine action and interpretation.
In Exodus 4:27 31 we have the record of the interaction between the Lord, Aaron, Moses and the Israelites upon Moses' return to Egypt. On the basis of the instruction and the signs given to Moses by God in chapters three and four he first instructs Aaron and then both instructs the people regarding God's words and performs his signs. We have a telling-doing-telling sequence.
John 20:30 31 provides another example. In addition to the many unrecorded signs, John says that he selects some to record with a view to faith in and life through Jesus Christ. Again there is a sequence of acts, record and explanation.
Paul's statements in Romans 4:25 and 1 Corinthians 15:3ff are even more exemplary of this truth. Romans 4:25 gives a record of two historical facts—the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The apostle gives theological comment on both facts, which would not otherwise be known when he states that the death was "because of our sins" and the resurrection was "because of our justification." Put another way, the death of Christ is explained in light of the Father's holiness vis-à-vis our sins; the resurrection is explained in light of the finished work of Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 15:3ff Paul uses a similar construct. He identifies the same two historical facts, death and resurrection, together with their historical verification, burial and appearance to many, respectively. For each fact he again gives theological comment. Regarding death he states that it is "for our sins"; regarding resurrection, it is "on the third day." The first theological comment teaches of the vicarious nature of his death; the second teaches of the veracity of Christ who had prophesied his own resurrection "on the third day."
The last example of the biblical interweaving of recorded theological truth and historical acts of God is found in 1 Corinthians 15:17. "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins." Apart from the historical (space-time) resurrection of Christ, faith, no matter how sincere, has no ability to appropriate God's forgiveness.
Special revelation, then, involves a divinely articulated confluence of 1) redemptive incident (historical fact), 2) a recounting of the act (verbal, propositional record), and 3) an interpretation of the act (theological meaning; truth).
Its Purpose
The purpose of special revelation is twofold. Its proximate end is the complete regeneration of sinners, that they may mirror the perfections and virtues of God, and the just condemnation of the lost. Its final end is the glorification of God by the manifestation of his character in all realms of reality, but especially in the work of redemption.
References:
1 Donald Bloesch, Essentials
of Evangelical Theology, I, 78
2 Ibid.,
p. 76
3
Bloesch, ibid., pp. 57 63
4
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, I, 153 259
5 Carl
F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 6 vols
6
Erickson, Op. cit. p. l96
7 Henry,
Op. cit., II, 151
8 Henry,
ibid., III, 457 58
9 Clark
Pinnock, Biblical Revelation, p. 23
10
John Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought, p. 29
11
William Temple, Nature, Man, and God, p. 317
12
William Hordern, Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology, pp. 128 30
13
Preus, The Nature of the Bible, Christian Faith and Modern Theology, Carl F. H.
Henry, editor, pp.113 128
14
Edward John Carnell, Existential, Existentialism, Baker's Dictionary of
Theology, p. 205
15
Pinnock, Op. cit., p. 24
16 Pinnock,
ibid.
17
Cf. G. E. Wright and R. Fuller, The Book of the Acts of God
18
Preus, Op. cit.
19
Pinnock, op. cit. pp. 25 26
20
Geoffrey Bromily, "Mysticism," Baker's Dictionary of Theology, p. 367
21
I. Howard Marshall, Biblical Inspiration, pp. 14 15
22
(C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, I, 155).
23
See Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, pp. 93 95
24
George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, pp. 404 5
25
Erickson, Op. cit., I, 157
26
Carl Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, II, p. 86
27
Bruce Demarest, General Revelation, p. 251
28
Louis Berkhof, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology, p. 128
29
Erickson, op. cit., p. 176
30
Erickson, op. cit., pp. 179 80
31
See Erickson, op. cit., pp. 181 191, for a somewhat different categorization of
what he calls the "modes of special revelation," viz. historical events, divine
speech, and the incarnation.
32
Henry, op. cit., III, 456 57
|
Copyright © 2007 by
AncientPath Network
and the authors. All rights reserved. |
051807P
