by Bob Thune
Some of the readers of this blog really don't seem to like general revelation. I get the feeling from talking to them that a conversation doesn't "count" as Christ-honoring and Bible-revering and truly evangelistic unless it includes a chapter and verse.
If a strong doctrine of general revelation makes me the bad guy, I'm okay with that. And if THAT's the case, I suppose the fact that I was reading Thomas Merton last week won't gain me any additional points with the aforementioned readers. It's okay, I'm used to it. I don't expect everyone to love a guy like Merton. His theology is pretty bad. But he has some keen insights into life. And if you don't believe you can learn good and true stuff from people you don't agree with, then your world is pretty small. And so is your doctrine of Providence.
In Merton's view, what makes a saint a saint is that he (or she) can speak sublimely about the world and God's relation to the world (i.e. general revelation):
A saint is capable of talking about the world without any explicit reference to God, in such a way that his statement gives greater glory to God and arouses a greater love of God than the observations of someone less holy, who has to strain himself to make an arbitrary connection between creatures and God through the medium of hackneyed analogies and metaphors that are so stupid they make you think there is something the matter with religion.
And the reason for the difference is that the saint knows that the world and everything made by God is good, while those who are not saints either think that created things are unholy, or else they don't bother about the question one way or another because they are only interested in themselves.
-- from Seeds of Contemplation, 1950
Leave it to a monk to think deeply and then say it like it is.
This is a good reminder Bob about wisdom and learning, thanks!
Posted by: Kendal | March 27, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Good words.
Posted by: bill | March 28, 2006 at 10:26 AM
"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation." (Ch. 1, Part 1)
Doubt it's the case that any of your detractors don't LIKE general revelation, they just know it's not SAVING revelation, with the promised blessing of "not returning void" that Scripture has.
Posted by: Westminster Confession of Faith | March 28, 2006 at 04:36 PM
Some of your readers have no idea what you are talking about either. I have (at leas I think I have) a somewhat decent grasp on some major ideas of theology. But to be quite honest, I just don't get a lot of this stuff. It fascinates me most of the time, but this special/general revelation stuff is way beyond me. All I know is that God still speaks to people, and I have found that in my life, He can use just about anything to do that.
Posted by: Patrick | March 29, 2006 at 09:50 AM
Patrick, as I understand it, general revelation as defined here basically means talking about the world in a way that points to God. I think we all do this to some extent naturally; Christians in particular understand (or should, anyway) existence in light of God'd glory. For example, I felt small and in awe the other day as I stood in the midst of the Rockie Mountains. I felt the weight of man's brokenness as I listened to a friend talk about the pain in her heart from a failed relationship borne out of other, older wounds, everyone and no one to blame... examples abound. You can feel the truth of scripture just by observing existence.
And it seems to me like we should. I think it is a powerful way to relate to unbelievers. To connect on the level of shared experience is a strong foundation for the natural next step of evangelism. It is no great leap to understanding man's sinfullness for one already convinced that something in humanity is wrong.
I like WCoF's comment above about general revelation not substituting for the scriptural kind. Clearly, there is much in the scriptures that can not be intuited from our experience. [I think here of people who say, "I'm spiritual but not religious/Christian." I used to wonder what that meant. Now I think it means they've really only gone halfway down the path. It's still wide at that point.] However, I think general revelation is a useful complement to scripture because it plants the 'why?' and 'how?' questions into the hearts of us all.
Follow up question for debate: is it overstating the case to say that general revelation is the natural experiential response for a disciple of Christ? That is, if the Gospel changes everything, is our natural response to everything colored by our knowledge of God? I say yes.
Posted by: Lane | March 29, 2006 at 01:47 PM
Lane, I would like to take your comment "about people who are spiritual, but not religious/Christian" one step further. Every person is a "spiritual" person in the sense that they relate to God, it is their failure to submit themselves to the God of Scripture in obedience which is the problem. They have not gone "halfway", but are continuing to "supress the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18) and "exchange the truth of God for a lie" (Rom. 1:25). In the end "the righteous man shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17). It is important in my mind to remember that ever person is either trusting in Christ or is not trusting in Christ..they either have faith or they don't. There is no halfway, so we should always be encouraging them to place their trust fully in Christ.
Posted by: Justin | March 29, 2006 at 06:23 PM
Let us be careful, friends and brothers, to whom we listen. Let us not be TAKEN captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ (Colossians 2:8), but let us rather TAKE every thought captive to obey Christ (2 Corinthians 10:5). A saint is not one who "can speak sublimely about the world and God's relation to the world". A saint is one who has been "born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Peter 1:3). Saints are those who have turned "from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in [Christ]" (Acts 26:18). This sanctification is by the word of truth (John 17:17). What does this word have to say about Merton? Colossians 3:16 says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God." If Merton means we can glorify God with our speech in the way God means to be glorified without making mention of Him, then I say Merton is wrong. The Apostle Paul said, "pray also for us, that God may open to us a door FOR THE WORD, to declare the mystery of Christ...—that I may make it clear, WHICH IS HOW I OUGHT TO SPEAK" (Colossians 4:3-4). After all, "faith comes by hearing, and hearing THROUGH THE WORD OF CHRIST" (Romans 10:17)! Men are born again by the living and abiding word of God (1 Peter 1:23)! By it they are sanctified (John 17:17); by it they are equipped for good works (2 Timothy 3:17); and with knowledge of it and discernment they abound more and more in love (Philippians 1:9)! It is the sword of the spirit which Paul commands us to take up in Ephesians 6:17, our only divinely powerful weapon for destroying strongholds, arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:4). Our own Lord and Savior spoke this way when He said "IT IS WRITTEN, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God'" (Matthew 4:4)! This is the Christ who came to "fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). Shall we forsake His pattern and invent a way of glorifying God "without any explicit reference to [Him]"? Such a ways does not exist. Instead, "Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate ON IT day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. THEN you will be prosperous and successful." (Joshua 1:8) Leave it to a monk to say whatever he wants. "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Joshua 24:15)
Posted by: Travis Carden | March 29, 2006 at 11:58 PM
General revelation? I think of it as Psalm 19 stuff, the heavens declare the glory of God. Revelation available to all of mankind that there is indeed a God out there. Psalm 19 goes on to say that general revelation is inferior to Scriptural revelation in acquiring and maintaining a relationship with God. But the conversation here seems to have been expanded to include God's speaking directly to mankind.
I've recently finished two fascinating books, An Affair of the Mind by Laurie Hall. If you read only one book on the devastation of pornography, this is the book. Her theology is weak in spots, but she maintains that God told her her husband had been unfaithful long before she had any evidence. Book No. 2, Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer, is about Mormon fundamentalism gone very, very bad. These people think God told them personally to kill other people. Wow.
Maybe that Psalmist guy had it right, that direct revelation is inferior to Scriptural revelation. And no wonder direct revelation has aroused such distate among us evangelicals.
Posted by: markrun330 | March 30, 2006 at 08:51 AM
Justin- when I say halfway, I mean a state of acknowledgement that there is more to life than mere biological existence, that there is a larger force at work and something more to humanity that flesh and bone. I fully agree that this does not constitute faith in Christ, and that much remains to be done in this person's soul. My point was that it is a start. Some of these people deny Christianity, but many just haven't been introduced to Jesus, or worse have been hurt by someone calling themselves by His name.
Travis- your argument is true, but I think we are talking about two different things. I view general revelation as a starting point for seeking answers in scripture. General is by no means a substitute for scriptural. Our experience testifies to God's existence, His creativity, beauty, and so forth. We can see, without first reading it in scripture, that things are not as they ought to be- we can feel it. If all heaven and earth testify to His glory, we should be able to see it, right? And we are then led to scriptures, to understand that which we see and learn that which we cannot see.
I may be defining general revelation as an answer while representing it as more of a question, which would pretty much destroy my argument. But where I see a place for general revelation is in early discussions with non-believers. I've been talking to someone recently about God, someone with a negative view of Christians and a uncertain view of God. If I would have started our dialogue by busting out my Bible and saying, "okay, first you are a sinner..."- I think we all know how that would've gone. Instead we talked about life, and how it is messed up, and how we humans hurt each other and why that might be- basically, asked some big questions. Guess where I said the answer was. Fast forward to yesterday, when she said "I just want a relationship with God." To sum, I guess I'm saying it's both/and with general and scriptural revelation, with scriptural CLEARLY taking precedence. But if I am guilty of the fallacy I mentioned above, bust me on it.
MarkRun330- love your first three sentences, but then you lost me. Who is talking about direct messages from God?
Posted by: Lane | March 30, 2006 at 10:23 AM
The bible says all of creation is a testament to the glory of God. Often people quote this when I say I'm not sure that people who never hear of Christ go to Hell. THe idea is that since creation is a testimony to the glory of God, they do have the opportunity to repent. However, if you say that the same thing implies that talking about creation is glorifying God, and the whole general revelation thing, they will say it doesn't count - scripture is more important. Well, if it's only be scripture that one can be saved, then how does one who never gets the opportunity to hear scripture keep from Hell? Where is God's glory in that? Just questions to pose to those who dislike general revelation.
I do believe general revelation exists, I just prefer to make mention of God explicit when appropriate. That turns some people off, but most are ok with it. After all, we are supposed to be in the world, befriending non-believers, but we are still supposed to testify to the hope that we have. We just have to do it with truth and love, being careful not to come across as condemning. *shrugs* I have no clue, I'm just ranting.
I actually pose the question: How important is theology? If I happen to believe a slightly different theology, does that imply that my faith is not in the true Christ, and therefore I'm not saved? Or does it mean that God meant theology to be flexible, knowing that us, finite man, cannot comprehend the fullness of God's nature well enough to get the strong, true theology?
Oh yeah I read the book already - good stuff, a lot to think about - I'm glad you guys wrote it.
Posted by: Switch | March 30, 2006 at 04:45 PM
Lane, I appreciate what you are trying to say. It is apparent from our experience that men may be under differing effects of the Spirit working in their lives. They may be under conviction of sins or have the veil that currently blinds them to their state removed. I would agree that scripture takes precident, but even more than that I would assert that we have know way of knowing how to interpret that which has been made known to all (general revelation) without special revelation. Take Markrun330's reference to Psalm 19. It is only because God has told us that the heavens declare his glory that we know they do. We must depend on God's word to help us understand how to view the world around us.
Switch, I would like to clarify something. You seem to have asserted that people can come to salvation through general revelation, because it would be unfair of God to condemn someone who never had the opportunity to believe.
First, no one is condemn for not believing. Condemnation is the result of sin, "For the wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:23). It is not because a person does not believe in Christ that they are condemned; it is because they have rejected God, "they supress the truth in unrighteousness" and "exchange the truth of God for a lie" (see Rom 1:18ff). In Romans chapters 1-3, we see clearly that all men are justly condemned by God. Yet we see a gracious God who has chosen to redeem some, even thought He need not save any. Romans 10:11-15 makes clear that salvation comes through hearing the word of God, in order to trust in Christ they must be presented with the gospel. Further, in 1 Peter 1:23 we see that people are born again (saved) by the word of God "for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God."
Scripture clearly asserts that no one is saved through general revelation, they must be presented with God's special revelation as reveal in Scripture. In the end there is one God, thus there is one correct theology and it can make all the difference.
Posted by: Justin | March 30, 2006 at 05:30 PM
I love it that Bob's posts generate so many comments, you rock!
Posted by: Kendal | March 30, 2006 at 07:02 PM
Ok Justin, good point - there is one correct theology - however which one is it, the one where transfiguration is correct, or the one where the bread is merely symbolic? Does someone have to believe the Trinity in order to be saved - do they have to believe that exact theology? Or just that Christ was prophesized about as the coming Messiah, was crucified for our sins, and rose on the third day? Does someone have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, or that Jesus is God?
Or let's do the far more interesting ones - is God outside of time, or inside of time? Did he descend into hell, and must that be believed too? He says whoever hears him and believes in Him who sent him will have everlasting life - does that mean one must believe in God, or specifically in Jesus' sacrifice?
Believe me, I do have the theology that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, that he rose from the dead, is the son of God, part of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, etc. My question is merely how much of the correct theology God actually requires us to have to be saved? Is believeing in Christ's resurrection enough, or does someone actually have to believe that Jesus is God? Does one actually have to believe they are literally drinking Christ's blood in communion?
Scripturally, it makes to say only the resurrection is necessary - but I would push that belief that Jesus is God and the Trinity concept might be required too - but how much of correct theology does God actually want us to know? Is it even possible to know the correct theology? Me, I think we're all going to be surprised in the end, because all of our concepts of what God is like, and all of our theologies are probably going to turn out wrong, as we fall face down, and realize that our attempt to classify God into this box of Trinity or this box of existing outside of time, or in time, will all turn out to be nowhere close to the truth - possibly truthful, but not 100% dead-on. Because while Scripture definitely gives us a great test for determining whether or not a theology is accurate, I don't think God intended us to be able to grasp the Truth about his nature entirely through scripture - it's not feasible for me, a finite being, to be able to grasp. I must accept that my theology, while accurate, cannot possible measure up to the Truth of God.
Sorry I'm off topic - none of that really has anything to do with general revelation - as I said before, I like general revelation, however, I still choose to talk about God, because I think God is far more important - and yes, his word is far more important than anything I could say about his creation - yet I await the day when I see Him in person, when I realize that even the holiness of his word in scripture does not compare, and did not prepare me for how glorious he is. Sorry for being a little overly-romantic, it's just that I consider theology to only be so important before I accept the fact that the more assumptions I add in my theology (such as God existing outside of time), the more likely I will have inserted an assumption that cannot be shown true or false by the Bible, and will turn out to be false. Thus I only maintain a general, simple theology - and I even question the essentials at times, merely out of curiosity for whether or not a given interpretation is in fact right, or if there is an equally valid theology that is different, but also passes the scriptural test.
Posted by: Switch | March 31, 2006 at 12:31 AM
[ Switch, I wrote the following before you posted your latest comment, but I would still like for you to have it. Regarding some of your latest questions about our ability to possess true theology I would point you to the discussion that Justin and I, in fact, already had with Bob on the subject over his post "Just What the Bible Says". http://walker.typepad.com/musings/2005/07/just_what_the_b.html (I was posting, at that time, as Russell, incidentally.) Now, here's to you, Mr. Robinson. ::wink:: ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Lane. My comment wasn't actually in answer to your thoughts but to Bob's original post, to call his readers to examine it (and his other writing) critically in the light of Scripture--like the noble Bereans of Acts 17. To which end I would like to respond to Switch's question: How important is theology?
Somewhat ironically, the importance of theology is itself a theological question--that is, the significance you ascribe the doctrine of God is the necessary consequence of the god in whom you believe. I hope the folly of this is obvious. As we did not create God so we have not the right to define Him as we please. We need an outside revelation from Someone with authority to speak on theology--from Theos, God. That revelation, of course, is the Scripture. So what does Scripture say about the importance of right theology? It says, "God is spirit, and those who worship him MUST WORSHIP IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH" (John 4:24). Proverbs 19:2, "It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty AND MISS THE WAY." Regarding the Jews, Paul said, "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness" (Romans 10:2-3). These were excluded from Christ's kingdom for ignorance of a right "theology" of righteousness. Just as Hosea also testified, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6).
Knowledge, then, is essential to salvation, and special revelation, the Scripture, is the vehicle of knowledge. For "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). Let me at this point clarify: we do not dislike general revelation. Only we know that it is not sufficient to be saved. To say that we dislike general revelation because we insist on more is like saying we hate mirrors because we deny that they are able to fix our appearance. We need mirrors to be shown our appearance, and natural revelation likewise shows us our condition before God and leaves us without excuse. But in the same way more is required for transformation. Indeed the heavens do declare the glory of the Lord, but they do not declare His salvation! Romans 1 tells us explicitely for what nature is effective: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 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. So they are without excuse." (vv18-20) Therein also is the function of natural revelation--to leave men without excuse. Special revelation is needful for salvation. "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name [but Jesus] under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
How, you ask, does one who never gets the opportunity to hear Scripture keep from Hell? They do not. That is Paul's whole point when he says, "“everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Romans 10:13-15) And where is God's glory in that? It is in the magnification of his JUSTICE. The whole chapter of Romans 9 is written to that effect, which I commend to you to read for yourself.
I hope, Switch, that that beings to answer your question about theology and demonstrates how to think biblically about such things. I should be clear: not all theology is equally necessary to salvation. The manner of baptism, for example, eschatology (end time views), and church government, are matters subject to grace in diversity. But to discern even this distinction requires the Scripture. Therefore be a student of IT and you will be a student of Christ if you believe and obey. Grow up by it into it until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes (Ephesians 4:13-14).
Posted by: Travis Carden | March 31, 2006 at 03:18 AM
Good answer Travis - you're right, God's revelation through Scripture is necessary for salvation. I do believe that - I"m not saying general revelation is better than special revelation - it's clearly not, it merely shows us how we fall short - which is usually the starting point of accepting Christ - the person still needs to hear about Him.
and I do agree with Romans 9. It's just that I have met people who use that verse has justification for the belief that someone over in China is hell-bound by not hearing the word of God, and I challenge the interpretation.
My other point was merely that theology is important only to a certain extent. We should not act like Scripture is the exhaustive knowledge of God - it is knowledge of his nature that he revealed to us. Not every question about God's nature can be answered yes or no with scripture - and some people act like it can. However, scripture is still important, because scripture describes to great lengths all the things God has chosen to reveal to us - therefore, it is sacred, and is worth learning and studying - and I do read it quite often. I'm just pointing out that between different theologies, there's no way to know which one was the "correct" one - the only thing we can know is that Jesus is Lord, and rose from the dead - because Scripture mentions that as being necessary for salvation - and that we have the power of the Holy spirit. You know, theological truths that are self-evident in scripture, and nearly impossible to provide an alternate interpretation for. It's eschatology, and the nature of God, and whether or not we need to practice the sabbath law, etc. I'm merely pointing out that if we can't know the correct theology in it's entirety now, why do people attempt to pursue theology beyond the essentials? The essentials are pretty much all I follow in regards to theology.
Back on topic, I do like general revelation, only as a starting point - it's slightly better than the whole "open up your bible, read that you're a sinner, etc" - while that is effective in some cases, it's definitely not effective to those who don't think premarital sex is a sin, or who don't think God is such a harsh judge (of course, they're wrong, they just don't realize it).
Of course, then we start getting into methods of evangelism, and now I'm rambling again.
Posted by: Switch | March 31, 2006 at 08:02 AM
Switch, I totally agree with you that scripture does is not the exhaustive knowledge. It would be impossible for us to ever full and complete exhaust everything that there is to know about God. However, God "has granted us everything pretaining to life and godliness" (2 Pet. 1:3) and it is scripture makes it "so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." And while we may never know everything there are things that we can and should know according to Deut. 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
I would also agree with you that "the belief that someone over in China is hell-bound by not hearing the word of God" is not supported in Romans 9, nor anywhere in scripture to my knowledge. People in China like people everywhere else on earth are hell-bound because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23). It is a consequence of sin that all people are earning eternal damnation (Rom 6:23).
What Romans 9 does make clear is that unless God sovereignly intervenes in a person's life there fate will be like every one else's. What a joy it to hear God say, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." (Rom. 9:15) Oh, if God had not had mercy no one would have been saved: not you, not I, not a single person in the world.
I think it's also a good idea to remind ourselves (especially myself) that in the end we may even have perfect theology and not go to heaven. We may believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but He may one day say "Depart from me I knew you not. It is a constant reminder to me that I need to be spending time reading His word so that it can expose the thoughts and intentions of my heart, because I cannot. (Heb 4:12, Jer. 17:9)
Thanks for being willing to talk about these things it makes me think about them more and I hope that it has been a help to you as well.
Posted by: Justin | March 31, 2006 at 05:24 PM
To Travis and Justin, in grace:
1) No one is saying that general revelation is sufficient to bring salvation. At least I'm not.
2) A pastoral rebuke to both of you for suggesting that Scripture is efficacious in and of itself. "We need an outside revelation from Someone with authority... That revelation, of course, is the Scripture...special revelation, the Scripture, is the vehicle of knowledge." Au contraire: Scripture is utterly ineffective without the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit, who (at least from this dialogue) appears to have little importance in your theology. "...[T]o this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over [the Jews'] heart; but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:15-18).
3) Could you justify biblically your assumption that every time the phrase "the word" or "the word of Christ" appears in Scripture, it is referring to the completed 66-book canon which we possess? It seems to me that the anachronistic nature of this assumption should be self-evident. (Just wondering what exactly you're going to say to my Muslim acquaintance who was visited by Jesus in a dream. Does he need to go read Romans before he's REALLY been confronted with the word of Christ? Not that such experiences are normative... but they'd better have a place in your theology, or you're at odds with Jesus.)
Posted by: Bob | April 02, 2006 at 03:26 PM
Bob,
1) First of all, my initial comments about the nature of general revelation and its relationship to salvation stem from Switch’s comment posted March 30th, “Well, if it's only be scripture that one can be saved, then how does one who never gets the opportunity to hear scripture keep from Hell? Where is God's glory in that? Just questions to pose to those who dislike general revelation.” I have never implied that was your position or anyone else’s, but his. In fact, I assumed you would believe that special revelation was a necessity for salvation.
2) In light of your second point, it was never my intention to assert that simply studying scripture will make someone a Christian. I would totally agree with you that no one can understand Scripture without the Holy Spirit, “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” (1 Cor. 2:14) But I would also point out that the very verse that you have quote demonstrates the need for Scripture. Paul is making the point that if men do not understand “whenever Moses is read” it is because they lack the Spirit. It is not because they have failed to present or corrupted “the word of God” (2 Cor 2:17, 4:2) It seems clear from this passage of Scripture that Paul assumed that the Spirit was going to be working through means of the “word of God” or the words of Moses, because Paul says the reason it is veiled is not because of a failure in the law of Moses, but because they have been blinded to the truth (2 Cor. 4:4).
3) As to your final question, I cannot maintain that every time “the word” is a reference to the 66-book cannon, after all John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the word…” which in context is clearly a reference to Christ. However, I can say that God has ordained the means of salvation to be the preaching of “the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:8-17). I would contend that Paul here is indeed referring to scripture as “the word of Christ”, using “scripture” to refer to all those written works that have been recognized as “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16), (of course at the time of Paul’s writing not all 66 books of revelation had been recognized or even written).
Paul in 2 Timothy 3:14-17 writes, “14You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
Here there is a clear chain in the discovering of salvation. It involves learning that which is grounded in the “sacred writings” for they are able to give the wisdom that leads to salvation. But even more, learning the scriptures is not enough; you must be convinced that they are true.
Furthermore, I believe that God has completed the special revelation of Himself through His Son and those who had heard him (Heb 1:2, 2:1-4). I would also believe that the inspired writings would be limited to the 66-book canon. There is no need for further revelation and any one who thinks otherwise should consider God’s insistence that no one add to or take away from His Word. (Rev. 22:18-19, Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, 12:32)
As for “your Muslim acquaintance who was visited by Jesus in a dream,” I would ask how he knows it was Jesus that appeared to him “for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). Neither you, nor him has any basis on which to defend the authenticity of that appearance. Furthermore, since he is not a Christian, he is by his very nature a liar, just as his father the devil (John 8:44).
Furthermore, I would encourage to “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind, (Col 2:18). Also, unless I am mistaken the only none Christian that Christ appeared to after his ascension was the apostle Paul. So unless your willing to consider the possibility of your acquaintance now being an apostle, I suggest you reconsider the authenticity of that vision.
Posted by: Justin | April 03, 2006 at 03:41 PM
Justin,
My bad... I should have finished the story by explaining that my Muslim acquaintance converted to Christianity on the basis of seeing the risen Christ in a dream.
Do you have room for such conversions in your theology?
Posted by: Bob | April 03, 2006 at 04:08 PM
Justin, if I implied that I consider general revelation to actually be good enough for salvation, I'm sorry. I was merely arguing points, just to people's beliefs, and whether or not there is a basis for them or if the person is just going down mainstream Christian doctrine, without ever actually questioning any of it. Clearly, you do know what you are talking about. It has been a good discussion. So I retract those earlier statements because they were more for questioning than actual beliefs. And the word of God is right, belief in Christ and special revelation is necessary for salvation.
As for your second point Bob, thanks. It is always important to recognize that the word of God and the Holy Spirit are both part of salvation - and to not mention the Holy Spirit when arguing for special revelation is not right. After all, since the discussion does involve glorifying God, mentioning the Holy Spirit and the work that He does is also an important part of glorifying God, as well as all these bible quotes. Thanks for the reminder of that.
3) Justin, we all may want to be careful on this point. I do believe there are historic cases of non-Christians seeing visions of Jesus, and I have heard a few of them myself. We must be careful, because we are to test all spirits - if the spirit acknowledges that Jesus is Lord, it is from God. So these could easily be visions from God - especially if they claim that Jesus is Lord. That is the biblical test in such matters, and is the way to determine if this vision really was true, or was a lie from the devil.
We ourselves should not take any stance though, since none of us saw this vision, so the only one to really know is this Muslim friend. However, it does not do well for us to immediately say this vision was from the devil. For if it is from God, we are blaspheming his name by saying his work is being done by the devil. Likewise, if it from the devil, than we are committing a grave error and falling into the devil's schemes. All we can and should do is pray for guidance, and learn more about this vision and whether or not the vision claimed Jesus is Lord - because if it does, according to the Bible, it is in fact authentic.
To say Jesus would never appear in post ascension form to anyone other than Paul is to assume that we know what Jesus will and will not do to get that 100th sheep back. Since Jesus never said he won't appear to non-believers, and since he has done so once before, we can assume that Jesus will do so if it is to accomplish the Lord's will. What this will is in regards to this Muslim friend we can only wait and see.
Posted by: Switch | April 03, 2006 at 04:18 PM
Justin, are you a pharisee? I've been reading your posts on Musings for a while now and you seem very puffed up with biblical knowlegde but I sense not even a touch of love or humility in your comments.
Posted by: anonymous | April 03, 2006 at 05:31 PM
Dear anonymous,
Thank you very much for your concern for my heart attitude. Pride and selfishness are two things I often struggle with and I hope that I have become a pharisee. However, if you could please point out the ways in which you believe that I have failed to show love or have demonstrated pride, especially in this more recent conversation I would really appreciate it? If I have done so, it has been unintentional. It would also be helpful for me to know how you are judging whether or not I am being loving or lacking humility, after all you may see the loving thing to do in a situation to be different than I would.
Posted by: Justin | April 03, 2006 at 06:28 PM
Justin,
While I can't say I know anonymous' exact reasoning for saying whatever s/he said, I could help make some pointers. None of this is meant to be harsh, I happen to have a lot of the same traits. The first one either is sarcasm. This one might not be true, however you mention earlier that Bob's statement might imply that Bob should reconsider whether or not his friend is an apostle. This could come off as sarcasm. Whether or not that was that actual intent, I doubt it. However, it is easily read into your words, mostly as a result of this being the internet, and not having the ability to hear inflections and knowing you're being sarcastic.
Another one, particularly touch of love, is you immediately say that we must treat Bob's Muslim friend as a liar, much like his father the devil. That can be seen as a very judgemental call, and not very loving. While it is true that lost people are subject to sin, and in general do make lies, it is God who declares him a liar. For us to make mention of it makes us either seem judgemental, or hypocritical. One must be careful not to be too harsh (or too gentle - obviously we should not treat a non-believers claims as if they are absolutely true).
Mainly, painting him as a sinner, and therefore a liar, is coloring him in absolutes. Yes, he was a sinner, and enemy of God, but as we see, God was working in his heart - so one must be kind when meeting non-believers, as God is still working in them, and they are capable of some honesty. As always, individual circumstances play a much larger role in determining the heart of the person, and therefore, whether or not a statement they make is actually trustworthy. After all, it is entirely possible for God to already be moving someone towards the truth. Of course, as we mentioned before, that's not even halfway, but there's still a wide enough margin that it is better to know circumstances before just declaring someone a liar.
As for my comment, I did not read Bob's. It is great news that his Muslim friend is now a Christian, and it definitely would make it seem that the vision was definitely from God. If not, then the devil really screwed up by causing someone to convert (and since the devil does not have such powers, powers to draw people toward God, we must conclude that it was a vision from God).
As I said, don't mistake me for being harsh. God makes some to be harsher than others for reasons. To some he means them to be very by-the-books, for others he means for them to be compassionate. We all have weaknesses, mine is being far too compassionate, and not willing to mention when one is wrong (depending on who it is).
Posted by: Switch | April 03, 2006 at 07:52 PM
Alright fine...I'll join the discussion/debate, but only because a guy in my church approached me and asked me some direct questions about revelation:
Millard Erickson says that "general revelation is inferior to special revelation." He then goes on to say that "the special revelation, however, requires the general revelation as well. Without the general revelation, man would not possess the concepts regarding God which enable him to know and understand the God of the special revelation. Special revelation builds upon general revelation."
Without getting into the "styles" (if you will) of special revelation, I have yet another question to ask or a scenario to ask: Where does Jesus come into the picture? In other words, if I'm in some far off remote village and I believe that there is a God (via general revelation), but I have never heard of Jesus, what is the status of my salvation?
Posted by: d white | May 01, 2006 at 01:17 PM