General Revelation and Special Revelation; Science and Faith
“As the two great books, of nature and of scripture, have the same author, so the study of the latter does not hinder an inquisitive man’s delight in the study of the former” - Robert Boyle, The Excellency of Theology Compared with Natural Theology, 1674
Louis Berkhof made the point in his Systematic Theology that God’s self-revelation to man is the prerequisite for any knowledge of him. Theologians have identified two methods and means by which God bestows this knowledge: general revelation and special revelation.
General revelation is God’s revelation to all man through all things, as displayed in creation itself. “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made” (Rom 1:19-20a, ESV). Creation itself is wrought by the hands of God, and as such is a display and testimony to the Creator.
“Special revelation” is the theological term used to refer to God’s more explicit revelation of himself to man. This includes his appearances to man, such as his communion with Moses,but most notably the text through which this knowledge is transmitted to us: the Bible. The scriptures are God’s special, divine revelation of himself to man. Contained within we can see God’s great overarching plan for humanity, unfolding in our midst, to which we have been called to be a part of. This special revelation does not make it to everyone before they pass their time on earth, which is why it is important for the church to spread the gospel to the nations.
In recent history, there has been a misunderstanding of the role that creation plays in our understanding of God. With the rise of Darwinism, the Church has reactively defended the traditional view of the Creation account, and rightly so. Evolutionary theory developed enough that science, as a discipline, rejects the notion of a Creator-God. However, this defense of Creationism by the Church escalated into a hostility toward science as a whole, and formed a dichotomy between the truth as revealed in scriptures, and the truth as presented by science. One is forced to choose between science or faith- and the two are, as argued, irreconcilable. I stand in the line of many before me, proposing that this tension is a false dichotomy.
Science as a discipline makes its aim to study the universe, or what the Christian would call Creation, in every form and shape that it takes. This can be physics, biology, psychology, sociology; each and every facet of scientific exploration. However, for the Christian, this study is on the subject of God’s Creation, and likewise his General Revelation. Therefore, any study conducted rightly and properly, will yield knowledge
that is profitable and instituted by God.
With this point in mind, there should be no hesitation on the part of the Christian to accept science. On the contrary, science should be embraced and endeavored more rigorously by Christians than any others! Science, when conducted rightly and properly, will ultimately only reveal what God created there from the very beginning. It is important to note the disclaimer of “when conducted properly,” because Christians need to weigh scientific findings against scripture, and science also changes its hypotheses as data and observations change over time.
For example: Christians have always maintained that the universe had a beginning and origin. Years ago, scientists rejected this idea, and argued that the universe was the ultimate constant; it had no beginning or end. As researched progressed, the evidence and data pointed to the opposite fact: that indeed, the matter in the universe was moving and expanding, and that it had an origin and starting point. This is now the scientific consensus known as the “Big Bang.” However, Christians maintained this truth in the midst of science’s incorrect findings.
Let me offer the opposite situation: In 1616, Galileo was proposing a new idea that shook the world. He proposed that the earth was not the center of the universe, and that the sun did not revolve around the earth. Through his studies in astronomy, he concluded that the opposite was the truth. The Christian Church was outraged, because this went against the “teachings of scripture.” Psalm 104:5 says, “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “the sun rises and sets and returns to its place.” Galileo was brought before the Pope as a here
tic, and forced to recant his teachings. However, this is clearly simply a misinterpretation of scripture, written from a terrestrial vantage-point, interpreted literally when the text is poetic.
Christians have been on both sides of the fence. Special revelation is the ultimate authority, and acts as a guide for the study of God’s general revelation. However, the study of God’s general revelation can offer insight into the interpretation of the scriptures.
Science is the ultimate authority of secular culture, much in the same way that the scriptures are the chief measure for the Christian. Dialogue needs to be made by the discerning Christian to reconcile these two, and abolish the false dichotomy that fundamentalist Christianity has created.
Some Discussion points:
On Theology- “Old Earth Creationism” and “Young Earth Creationism.” Was the earth made in six, literal 24-hour time periods, 10,000 years ago? Was the earth made billions of years ago, as current understanding of science suggests (general revelation), and each “day” was a poetic time period?
On Culture- (1) Evolution. Is this the next Galileo? Is science interpreting the data correctly? Is the data even present?
(2) Intelligent Design. Should it be fought for in schools? Is it for the private sector, or public sector?
These are just to start some ideas flowing. Feel free to take the dialogue in any direction that you are interested in.
Faith and science are not at odds with one another. Christians should embrace science, as it continues to shed more light and corroborate God’s revelation in scripture. As discussed in the comments so far, “All truth is God’s truth.” The pursuit for truth should be advocated in every arena, so long as the conclusive findings are balanced and guided by God and his revelation.
-ACR
Not long ago I was taking a masters level OT module and my prof made the point that Genesis 1 is in fact Hebrew poetry and it is therefore unfair to ask it to answer modern scientific questions. I fully agree. This leads me to believe that spending major amounts of time arguing for either of the above mentioned views on creation is a sidetrack to what the biblical text is concerned with communicating.
I have serious doubts as to the benefit of something like the Creation Museum in Cincinnati, OH. I’m not saying the issue shouldn’t be talked about, but this is a major area where Christians should really be wise in what battles they choose to fight.
Hehe, that’s exactly the point that I’m trying to make.
We were in class yesterday and discussing the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel, that are addressed to the King of Tyre. These are the passages that commentators note are dually-applied to both the King of Tyre, and yet also Satan. The text invokes images of falling from Eden, being cast down from high places to “the earth,” etc.
I brought forward the observation that because the passages are Hebrew poetry, perhaps we are reading too literally-deeply into them. Could it be that the passages were using metaphorical imagery of a great, tremendous fall? “Eden” being communion with God, “the earth” being fallen humanity, etc. One part of the passage says “son of the dawn,” and the KJV translates it as the name “Lucifer,” a name found nowhere in scripture. Could people bring predispositions of this translational mistake to the text, and be interpreting the poetry too literally, and assume it’s Satan? There is no fundamental doctrine about Satan in the passages that is not found elsewhere in scripture.
Poetry cannot be interpreted as prose, but rather judged on its own merits- as poetry. This is not to say that we can’t develop doctrine or theology from poetic passages, but they must be interpreted and read correctly, to develop ideas from them.
William of Ockham was a Christian philosopher in the 14th century. He developed a principle still used today, now called “Occam’s Razor.” Translated and paraphrased, he said that nothing should be made to be more complicated than necessity would require. Nowadays, it’s known in engineering as the “K.I.S.S.” principle: “Keep it simple, stupid.” If the passage doesn’t say anything new about Satan, and if it is poetry that has to be read as prose to refer to Satan, it doesn’t *have* to refer to Satan.
More on topic, I think that applies perfectly here as well. The Creation account is a specific text that is read in a manner not as it was intended.
However, the greater principle of “General Revelation” has much more ramifications than simply my starting conversation points. It is very important for Christians to not be afraid of science, but to embrace it.
Aaron said: “Poetry cannot be interpreted as prose, but rather judged on its own merits- as poetry. This is not to say that we can’t develop doctrine or theology from poetic passages, but they must be interpreted and read correctly, to develop ideas from them.”
I agree with your point here Chachi, but would like to add to it.
Which of these two statements are most ‘true’?
‘God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient’
Or:
‘God is a rock, a shield and a high tower’ (cf. 2 Sam. 22:3 KJV)
Obviously, in a technical/doctrinal sense, the first statement is more true, because God is not (in a literal sense) a rock or a shield or a high tower. Yet we do not find the first statement anywhere in Scripture, whereas there are many places (especially in the Psalms) where God is described through metaphor, as in a rock or a shield. What’s more, I think many would agree that the latter statement is perhaps more meaningful to us, because it is more readily understandable and has a certain poetic beauty which the first does not. Saying God is a rock is SIMILAR to saying that God is omnipotent, but it lacks something - it is a statement is my view which is less and not more useful.
What I’m saying is that poetry should be read as poetry and (mostly) left as poetry - poetry conveys has a depth of meaning which is absent when it is translated into systematic theology or doctrine. While you’re right, Chachi, in suggesting we can form doctrine from poetry, I believe that that is a secondary purpose. Something should not be deemed valuable simply because we can rationalise or systematize it. (I know this is not where you or Daniel are coming from, so this is not aimed at you by the way!). Poetic statement has it’s own beauty and it’s own truth which transcends our overwhelmingly modern desire to rationalise it. I think that some of our rationalisations of biblical poetry, such as those mentioned above, have robbed it of it’s meaning and value. The same could be said for example of many biblical stories and narratives (e.g. Jesus parables, Job etc.). Not that systematic theology is wrong (it has it’s place in the Christian understanding), but it is not the be all and end all, and not everything should be judged by it.
The trend among younger generations and the emerging church towards a re-emphasis of the power of story and the value of narrative preaching is admirable. Again, not that this is alone is sufficient, but the two - systematic truth and poetic truth - should be held in tension because they are both valid. There has, in my view, been a neglect of the value of poetry as poetry and story as story in the church, and it would good if this were corrected. In this area I see myself as far more ‘post-modern’ than ‘modern’ :).
I agree completely. It’s a good one-step-further to take the same thought process. Actually, it is due to this very truth that I personally have an overwhelming emphasis on the discipline of *BIBLICAL* Theology, as opposed to strictly Systematic Theology. I don’t think that Biblical Theology is a replacement for Systematic, or that it even supersedes it. I think a much greater emphasis needs to be placed on Biblical Theology, to understand the undercurrent themes that run throughout the continuity of the canon, such as the Kingdom, Redemption, and Grace. These are themes most associated with the New Covenant, but each find their root in the first chapters of Genesis.
If I can take it one step further as well, I would personally argue that if a greater understanding of these principles were in practice, (and if Biblical Theology had as much attention as Systematic Theology), then Dispensationalism would not exist.
I would not go as far as some postmoderns to dismiss Systematic Theology outright, however, as is currently a trend. I think that ultimately, Systematic Theology is a great tool- it just needs to be understood and used appropriately.
-ACR
Indeed. The church fathers would not have spent so much time ironing out heresy and formulating the more systematic expression of the faith we find in the creeds if it were not necessary. As you say, it is a balance that we need.
Heartily agree on the dispensationalism thing - you rather hit the nail on the head with that one!
Oh, and as you can see I know have a thoughtful picture too :)
Dude. Term’s over. How about a new post? Or at least a comment on my blog? ;)
So here is an interesting discussion: In general revelation, we believe that God can speak and make Himself known to humanity outside of Scripture - not just in creation as in the cosmos, animals, trees, or by pondering something such as the glory of our eyes and ears, but also through art, literature, and similar cultural things. For example, Paul quotes a few different Greek (and pagan) poets such as Epimenedes, one found in Acts 17:28, “In him we live and move and have our being.”
So, the question for me arises, when the Spirit takes words that are not Scripture, such as with Paul in Acts 17, and speaks to humanity through them, are they then meant to be recognized as special revelation? If so, then is their a line to be recognized when something can be referred to as God speaking (special revelation) and when something is just helpful general revelation?
It’s interesting to add God’s speaking today under the category of special revelation. Here are my thoughts:
If God speaks through culture (also seen in Paul’s conversion- “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” is Euripides), there has to be some form of measure to objectify the subjectively-natured event. More specifically, if I think that God is speaking truth to me through “The Matrix,” that is very subjective. That is my personal experience. How can you make it objective, rather than subjective? Does everyone who watches it have to have the same, corroborative experience?
I think the only standard measure that you can be sure to be objective is the canon. The implication that I’m getting at is that the canon is closed. This is not to say that God doesn’t speak to us today; far from it. However, it is hard to qualify it as special revelation in such a manner.
Did I understand your proposition correctly? If I misunderstood, than I may have taken it in the wrong direction.
Basically, I think special revelation should be confined to the canon. God reveals himself to man in general revelation and in common grace, and I think cultural elements that point to God and to truth should be confined to this area. I think it can only be special revelation if God objectifies it through scripture, which is closed.
Any thoughts?
wow theres a load of stuff to respond to in this blog……if i was honest and said it as I see it, it MAY cause some ripples!! But on this point, isn’t it true that the quote from aratus and whoever else in the Acts 17 discourse is not Paul raising the greek poets to ‘divinely inspired’ but he is simply using them to connect, enculturise (is that a real word??) and ‘illustrate’ the truths he is seeking to communicate.
On the ‘theoolgy’ issue, it is intersting to note the difference between say Grudem and Berkhof..true systemeatic theologies, and say Ladd (which is two thirds the Kingdom of God and the rest an afterthought!!) and Guthrie who is more true to the shape of scripture and its authors but these compared to the biblical theology school (notably Graeme Goldsworthy) where you almost feel its ‘going with the flow of scripture’,
My problem with much Systematic theology is that it creates answers from material which probably isnt giving the answers… ISA 14 or Ezekiel 26 about Satan is a perfect example!!
The description of God under headings of communicable and incommunicable attributes is so unlike the scriptures it creates ‘facts’ where perhaps there shouldn’t be. I’ve spent my life systematising, but I’ve learnt ‘if it don’t fit …let it hang’, it doesn’t sound theological but I think it stope us going further than the scriptures take us.
Just a further thought on Acts 17, …. there was no NT ‘canon’ at this time, and it would I think be an error to ‘lift and drop’ Pauls words from then into now without ‘processing’ it in some way. WHY was this message so different from his other messages in Acts, apart from Pisidian Antioch, most of the ‘messages’ were to Jewish audiences perhaps?? Why did he quote pagan poets, why do we quote John Lennon, Napoleon, and any number of modern cultural icons or historical figures in our sermons…could Paul simply be doing the same thing??
I think we all agree that the canon of Scripture is closed. But what does that mean? The word canon means “measuring stick”, that being of our faith. And I agree that it was the providence of God to see our fathers have the wisdom of confirming a “closed” canon (66 books total with OT and NT). But what does the word “closed” mean? To me, it closed God’s redemptive revelation. Christ and the new covenant were THE final words on salvation and redemption and reconciliation with God. His redemptive history began in Genesis and ended in Christ. But it did not close the Holy Spirit and His speaking today (and I know you agree). At this point in my life, I like to define revelation as redemptive and non-redemptive. Yes, all prophecy does relate to Jesus (see Rev 19:10b), and thus we could say it is “redemptive”. But I think you can understand this distinction for now - redemptive revelation is closed in Jesus being the final word (and the NT); non-redemptive revelation not specifically relating to salvation (which, in a sense, is also found in the canon) continues.
Does that mean every prophetic word that comes forth, or sensing that God is speaking from a poem, mean that we set it equal with Scripture? No, because we, by faith, say Scripture is the canon, or measuring stick of our lives and faith. The poem, or my prophetic utterance, is not that measuring stick. But, I also do not want to take away the authority of the prophetic word. I have witnessed some pretty “powerful” words of knowledge in my life that have only come from God, His revelation, His special revelation. He eSPECIALLY revealed something in a situation. I don’t write a new book of the Bible because of it, but I know that it is truly the word of the Holy Spirit, and it carries authority. And I would even venture to say it carries authority in the sense of me reading Ephesians or 2 Timothy. Or is that weird to say?
Funny thing is that Paul’s “Damascus Road experience” is, in a sense, subjective. It’s his “experience”. Yet it’s in Acts (the word of God) and so we see it as somehow authoritative. It’s not like what happened in Paul’s new birth experience has to happen in everyone of our lives. There are things to learn from it such as - it is Christ who calls to us, it was not our idea, we might need to get “knocked of our donkey”, it is a radical life change in truly meeting Christ, we need to receive the Spirit and be water baptized, etc. But, as we would agree, we don’t all have to have the “experience” Paul had. We could say the same of our experience - that there are truths to be learned from our experience of becoming a new creation. No, we aren’t going to write a new book of the Bible because of it (though many will write a new book to put in the stores).
I don’t have all the answers for this discussion, but I don’t want us to just take the path of the “reformers” and say sola Scriptura and, like many of them, forget the voice of God (which I know we look not to cut out His voice). As a teacher of the Word, I want to be challenged not to become a Bible idolater and forget the ever-speaking Holy Spirit who is taking up residence in me right this very moment. Some things He speaks will be “subjective” in that it is His word for my life and my life alone. But some words will be revelation, of a “special” nature, that is authoritative and from Him alone as direction for a wider group of people. Again, it doesn’t mean I write 3 Thessalonians or 1 Memphis or whatever. But God has specially revealed Himself after the first century and will continue to reveal Himself until we no longer need prophecy because Christ has returned.
Anyways, those are some thoughts to ponder…though I didn’t include much on God speaking through the life of culture products, though I think we could relate some of the thoughts that I had about Paul’s (and our) new birth “experiences” and the subjectiveness of those.
Quote JT:
“if i was honest and said it as I see it, it MAY cause some ripples!!”
Please, do! We are all here for discussion.
On the point of Paul’s use of poets.. Yes, he is using them to illustrate points. However, they are also small proverbs that contain a nugget of truth. Paul is harnessing these as tools to spread universal truth.
All truth is God’s truth, not just truth revealed in scripture. Therefore, as Augustine said, anything that philosophers have done or said well, Christians can appropriate to good use. Paul here does this, with the Greek poets. They communicate universal truth, which although not in the Bible, are still in fact God’s truths.
Regarding Systematic vs. Biblical theology, Prof. Richard Gaffin illustrates it well:
“I’ve found it helpful to use the analogy of plot analysis of a great epic drama to describe the BT/ST relationship. The history of redemption (set against the backdrop of creation and fall) is the ‘drama,’ and ST, under appropriate topics (God, man, creation, sin, salvation, etc.) and with an eye to the whole, discusses the actors and their interactions that constitute the ‘plot.’ In this way the topical concern of ST with what the Bible in its unity and as a whole teaches is maintained but in a way that keeps it focused on the unfolding of covenant history to its consummation in Christ (the concern of BT).”
To Scott-
I really like your thoughts on this subject. It is a good development of revelation as redemptive and non-redemptive. I don’t know if Geerhardus Vos would agree or not, but I think there is merit.
Particularly, I have held a similar view regarding *general* revelation, even though in your context you discuss *special* revelation. I think that as we make more and more discoveries in the realm of general revelation, we are seeing more revelation of God continually (even though this revelation was already created in the beginning, we only now discover it). The same can be said of special revelation continuing, with power and authority in the Holy Spirit. You should definitely write 1 Memphis.
-ACR
So, we need Geerhardus Vos’s agreement with our thoughts? :) He probably wouldn’t like my teetering near the line with my thoughts, as he is/was reformed, and an older reformed at that. He would not have had the past couple of decades to “reform” his reformed theology due to all of the new and many and varied moves of the Holy Spirit. :)
No, we don’t need Vos’ agreement =D. That being said, I don’t think the moving of the Spirit necessitates a reevaluation of Reformed theology strictly speaking, but Reformed theology can certainly accommodate for it =).
James K.A. Smith has a cool lecture on his website about the dovetailing of Pentecostalism and Reformed tradition, in that both are ultimately leaving our own agendas aside and giving the reigns over to God.
-ACR