As promised, I would like to start a conversation on the topic of revelation. If we are going to call this blog “Just One Book” and refer to that book as the Bible it is appropriate that we should state our stance on revelation. For one’s view on what revelation is and does completely shapes how one reads the Bible. For instance, if we took a more liberal stance that there is no revelation in the Bible at all we could affirm that these words, passages, and phrases are just the writings of men and are questioned as to validity authenticity and most of all truthfulness.
Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself. To begin I would like to work with a definition of revelation. From there we can decide how one views revelation and how we are to have it be appropriated to our use of the Bible.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines revelation as:
General revelation is knowledge that is communicated through general means, or nature. Psalm 19:1 says,
In the 20th century there were two men who, in their own camps, were seen as champions of dealing with what to do with special revelation, or to put it more bluntly, the Word of God. One of these men is Karl Barth, German theologian and writer of the famous Church Dogmatics. In Barth’s first Volume Part One, titled, “The Doctrine of the Word of God” he attempts to line out how he is going to move forward in his dogmatics and he is starting with the Word of God. But one quickly realizes that by Word of God Barth is not intending to mean the Bible, but something greater than the Bible.
You see for Barth and his followers, a great question was what is revelation. In discussing his use of the Bible Barth in I.I.4.3 states:
This short couple of paragraphs does not do justice to the thought of Barth, but I wanted to show a deference in what he viewed revelation as and what someone like Carl F.H. Henry saw it as. Henry was one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, especially for evangelicals. He was not only the founder of groups like the Evangelical Theological Society, the editor of Christianity Today but also an author of several books. One of which is his 6 volume work God Revelation and Authority. In vol. one of this work he defines revelation as:
So what is revelation? It is the communication of God to us especially seen in his words to us the Bible. Every time we read it we are engaging in revelation and we do not have to guess if we are receiving revelation. In fact even unregenerate people can read the Bible as revelation, something that Barth would deny.
This is only a beginning, but an important beginning in understanding what the Bible is and how it should be used.
Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself. To begin I would like to work with a definition of revelation. From there we can decide how one views revelation and how we are to have it be appropriated to our use of the Bible.
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines revelation as:
With this broad definition of revelation we can begin our work to narrow down what we especially mean by revelation. The definition above basically points out that it is something that is disclosed by the divine. Since most people would claim that God (in a very broad sense) is “unknowable”, “incomprehensible”, or “intangible”, for one to know him there must be some knowledge that is communicated. This knowledge can be found in two major categories: general revelation and special revelation.“The disclosure or communication of knowledge by a divine or supernatural agency; an instance of this; a thing disclosed or made known by divine or supernatural means.”
General revelation is knowledge that is communicated through general means, or nature. Psalm 19:1 says,
This is the same idea we get from Romans 1:18-20:“The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
However, this revelation is not enough to reveal what we need to know about God. Something more specific needs to come to people and it is found in special revelation. There are a few differing opinions on what special revelation truly is. For instance one question to be asked is, “what is the content of revelation?” “Is it words about God, or God himself?” To these questions we now turn.“18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessnessand wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since whatmay be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternalpower and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
In the 20th century there were two men who, in their own camps, were seen as champions of dealing with what to do with special revelation, or to put it more bluntly, the Word of God. One of these men is Karl Barth, German theologian and writer of the famous Church Dogmatics. In Barth’s first Volume Part One, titled, “The Doctrine of the Word of God” he attempts to line out how he is going to move forward in his dogmatics and he is starting with the Word of God. But one quickly realizes that by Word of God Barth is not intending to mean the Bible, but something greater than the Bible.
You see for Barth and his followers, a great question was what is revelation. In discussing his use of the Bible Barth in I.I.4.3 states:
What Barth is claiming is that The Bible is not revelation until the Word of God is with it. In fact he claims that there are past, present and future revelations, wherever the Word of God (not the Bible) is present with the Bible or proclamation.“The Bible is the concrete means by which the Church recollects God’s past revelation, is called to expectation of His future revelation, and is thus summoned and guided to proclamation and empowered for it. The Bible, then, is not in itself and as such God’s past revelation, just as Church proclamation is not in itself and as such the expected future revelation. The Bible, speaking to us and heard by us as God’s Word, bears witness to past revelation. Proclamation, speaking to us and heard by us as God’s Word, promises future revelation. The Bible is God’s Word as it really promises revelation. The promise in proclamation, however, rests on the attestation in the Bible.”
This short couple of paragraphs does not do justice to the thought of Barth, but I wanted to show a deference in what he viewed revelation as and what someone like Carl F.H. Henry saw it as. Henry was one of the great thinkers of the 20th century, especially for evangelicals. He was not only the founder of groups like the Evangelical Theological Society, the editor of Christianity Today but also an author of several books. One of which is his 6 volume work God Revelation and Authority. In vol. one of this work he defines revelation as:
What is the difference here? Henry sees revelation in something that is concrete. Words, sentences, propositions, all have truth claims and meaning in them and are used as revelation. Revelation does not merely happen when one reads the Bible, but one reads revelation. With Barth revelation is dependent on an ever acting divine intervention. With Henry that intervention is forever recorded in the words of the Bible.“the source of all truth, the truth of Christianity included; reason is the instrument for recognizing it; Scripture is its verifying principle; logical consistency is a negative test for truth and coherence a subordinate test. The task of Christian theology is to exhibit the content of biblical revelation as an orderly whole.”
So what is revelation? It is the communication of God to us especially seen in his words to us the Bible. Every time we read it we are engaging in revelation and we do not have to guess if we are receiving revelation. In fact even unregenerate people can read the Bible as revelation, something that Barth would deny.
This is only a beginning, but an important beginning in understanding what the Bible is and how it should be used.
1 comment:
I think you may have miss-characterized Barth's position. Barth is simply stating that it is more than just words, because God reveals Godself in us. That's the special revelation, that's the glory of God!
As opposed to the past, present, and future revelations, absolutely! Doesn't that make logical sense?
The past revelation in the Bible points to the future revelation also contained within it.
Barth would have agreed with your first paragraph, and he would have agreed with your saying that only the "regenerate" can receive that revelation. Barth would say that this is what the church does, and that only the church can do it. It's unique in that aspect.
Also, in an attempt not to miss-characterize your position I'm confused by the words of Carl F.H. Henry here "logical consistency is a negative test for truth and coherence a subordinate test." Is he saying that God's word doesn't have to be logical, and those words don't have to make sense?
Because if that is the case, I have major problems with this guy.
Post a Comment