ST 502 Mansucript

8/14/2019 ST 502 Mansucript

1/216

STDr.

502 TheWordSamuelWaldron


2/216


3/216

SYLLABUS FORPROLEGOMENA TO SYSTEMATIC T LOGY 2

[DOCTRINE OF THE WORD]LECTURE OUTLINE:PART 1 : REVELATION IN GENERAL

SECTION 1 : THE CONCEPT OF REVELATIONSECTION 2 : THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATIONPART 2 : REDEMPTIVE REVELATION

SECTION 1 : ITS INTRODUCTIONSECTION 2 : ITS RELATIONSSECTION 3 : ITS IMPARTATION

PART 3 : INSCRIPTURATED REDEMPTIVE REVELATIONSECTION 1 : THE ATTRIBUTES OF SCRIPTURESECTION 2 : THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

EXAMINATIONS:THERE WILL BE A BRIEF QUIZ AT THE BEGINNING OFIEACH DAYS LECTURES. IT WILLCOVER ONLY THE PREVIOUS DAYS LECTURES. THUS, UR1NG THE COURSE THERE WILLBE SIX QUIZZES . THE QUIZZES WILL YIELD A TOTAL 0! 114 POINTS. 1 4 OF THESE POINTSARE EXTRA CREDIT . QUIZZES WILL BE THE BASIS FOR 0 % OF YOUR GRADE.AT THE COMPLETION OF THE LECTURES THERE WILL A TAKE-HOME FINAL EXAM. ALLQUESTIONS ON THIS FINAL EX AM W ILL BE DRAWN ROM THE QUIZZES . THIS EXAMWILL BE FOR THE OTHER 50% OF YOURGRADE.

READINGS:FORPART1:INERRANCY, ED. BY NORM GEISLER, CH . 7 ,1 1REVELATIONAND THE BIBLE, ED. BY CARL F. H. HENRY, CH . 1FORPART2:REVELATIONAND THE BIBLE, CH . 3,4,5,6FOR PART 3 :INERRANCY, CH . 1,2,3,4,6,8, 12 , 13 , 1 4

REVELATIONAND THE BIBLE, CH . 9 , 19,20,21,22THE READING IS APPROXIMATELY 500 PP .


4/216


5/216

PART 1 : REVELATION IN GENERALSECTION 1 : THE CONCEPT OF REVELATIONI. Revelation Is Principial Fundamental, FoundationalPrincipial i s the adjective derived from th e noun, principium, s4iich means a first principle. InIntroduction to Systematic Theology a more extended definitio4 i s given. See the Greek word,arch

A. Revelat ion assumes and imp lie s the three principipl. ofprincipium of theology:1 the God who speaks; 2 the man w ho i s his image; 3 the W$td which He speaks . Revelat ionis, therefore, God speak ing to man. Each of these principiunj are vital links in the chain ofrevelation. Each i s necessary if man i s to have any knowledge ofTHE THREE PRINCIPIA OF THEOLOGY

GodPrincipium Essendi

RevelationPrincipium Cognoscendi Externu$

ManPrincipium Cognoscendi Intemuxi

SubjectiveknowledgeofGod in ManTheology1 . The God who speaks

The God ofthe Bible i s the God who speaks. Revelation i s a distilotive characteristic ofthe God ofthe Bible Psa. 115:5-7cf. Gen. 1 : 3 ; Ez ek. 1 2 :2 5; H eb. 1:1,2; 124$.2 . The man who i s H is Image

The fac t of revelation assumes that man is able to know God. Thi: ability to know God is grounded1


6/216

in the ana logy which exists between God and Man because ofMans being the image of God.Since it was by Gods creation that man became theimage ofGod, it f ollows that man was adaptedby God in creation to be a recipient ofr evela tion. God made man to be his image, he made him toreceive revelation. Mans essence i s that he i s Gods image. This means that his essence i s to knowand respond to God. He i s a covenant being--made to know God.

Man did not come into being indifferent as to the manner how, and only afterwardsrevelation was added to him as an auxiliary and w as therefore adapted to his need.... on thecontrary.... our human race was in its creation entirely adapted to this revelation.A necessary dis tinc tion must here be made. As Gods image, there i s a "two-fold office ofman inrevelation." First, as image ofGod he i s himself one great part ofGods revelation. God manifestshimself in human nature. Man i s image, that is to say visible representation and reflection, ofGodGen. 1 :26-28 ; Rom. 2:14,15. It i s not th is th at we are focusing our attention upon now. It i s thesecond office ofman in revelation. This is simply that man as image ofGod i s no t only himself arevelation of God, bu t he possesses the abili ty , capacity, faculty to perceive that revelation.External creation reveals God bu t does not perceive that revelation. Man both reveals God andperceives that revelation.2 Berkhof and Kuyper before him entitle this faculty faith.3Difficult questions arise here, bu t th e main point is that the faculty by which man comes to knowGod is not reason in the sense ofhis ability to follow a process of reasoning. It i s not reason in thesense of logical action. This would imp ly that mans reason enables him to move from a state ofno t knowing God to a state of knowing God. To the contrary, man always knows God by animmed iate p erc ep tion, w ith immed ia te ce rta in ty . Man i s was from the beginning in everymoment of his existence immediately confronted with God.

The word faith has a far more profound meaning, however. It i s f requently used to denotethe posit ive knowledge that does not r es t on external evidence nor on logical demonstration,but on an immediate and direc t insight.43 . The Word which He speaks.

Revelat ion assumes the W ord which God speaks. All revelation flows from this Word. Therevelation in creation and the revelation embodied in the Scriptures exist because God spoke Psa.147 :15-20 with Gen. 1:3f Heb. 1:1. Only through th is Word which God has spoken can we knowGod.1Abraham Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980, 26 3 .2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 264 .3Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 265f Berkhof, Introduction to SystematicTheology GrandRapids : Baker, 1979, 181f .4Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 181.

2


7/216

B. Revelation is the sole and necessary means ofknoir God.Geerhardus Vos remarks , "All personal life remains a closed myery to us as long as he whose lifethis i s does not disclose itto us." The k ey text here i s 1 Cor. 2 :1The corollary of th is f ac t is that theology which has for its priijipium revelation i s dis t inct andunique as over against every other science in its method ofacqu4iig the knowledge it pursues. Inall o ther s cience s man i s active in taking knowledge f rom a pive object of study. He standsabove th e ob jec t and by his reason thaws ou t knowledge from be object. In theology however ,m an i s dependent and i s given knowledge th rough the humility f faith . H ere the object of study,God, imparts knowledge to the man who now occupies the comp4utively passive position.2

C. Revelation is foundational to both religion and the$ogy.Revelation and religion are inseparable, bu t there i s clear order precedence. Revelation alwaysdemands the response of religion, bu t religion i s impossible in tljo absence of and i s based uponrevelation. Revelation demands a response. Religion i s that respcse 2 Pet. 3:11-14.Even more clearly theology is founded upon, grounded in revelaon. What i s th eo logy? Kuyperproperly distinguishes three factors of w hat he calls innate theogy the theology Adam wouldhave possessed before the fall.

1 . Revelation ofGod through Adams natured the external world.2 . Faith by which Adam wou ld have perceiv4 that revelation.3 . Logical action reason by which this evelation could be reduced toknowledge ofGod, in other words, theology.

Theology is, thus, the knowledge ofGod which results when logpal action reason transposes therevelation perceived by faith into a body of knowledge whi4 it understands intellectually.3Revelation is therefore the reference point by which the validity 4 f both theology and religion i s tobe verified. It i s the principium from which they spring. Ramm omewhere says, "Theology mus tarise f rom a knowledge ofGod, be controlled by a knowledge ol God, and be referable back to aknowledge ofGod." Divine revelation i s the reference point by wch any theology or religion i s tobe verified. This raises another question: What i s the reference point by which revelation i s to beverified?D. Revelation is externally unverifiable.Kuyper, Princzples ofSacred Theology, 248 ; cf. Geerhars Vos, Biblical TheologyGrand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948 11 , 12 .2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 248 , 3 4 1 - 3 4 3 .3Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 268-270.

3


8/216


9/216

certainty regarding the identity of the Bible as th e Word of Go4. This assumes the existence ofdoubt. No such doubt exists!a . The Word ofGod i s self-authentic$irg. It attests itself as th e Wordof God by an inmiediate appeal to the deepest realities of man*:.existence. Ifman can deny, hecannot forget H is Makers voice. The Word of God is self-atte$ing, self-verifying and, thus, allother verification i s superfluous.b. The Testimony of the Spirit is the only influence which can removethe quasi-doubt, the unbelief, which exists in the hearts of sin ers. As all other attempts toconvince the depraved man of the Bibles identity will fail, so tis testimony will alone producedivine certainty and faith. In the hearts of all believers a ver4kation exists which exceeds allothers. The real need ofthe unconverted i s not intellectual verificttion bu t ethical renovation.

This treatment ofthe fact that revelation i s unverifiable should grc$nd and explain the methodologyof this course. We w ill extract our doctrine of the Scriptures fro4i the Scriptures themselves. Ourmethodology will be precise ly what it is in the other loci of SysteiaticTheology.One other qualification is , perhaps, necessary. Though revel Uon itself i s not verifiable, ourdoctrine of revelation, our doctrine of th e Word ofGod is . Our petrine of revelation i s verifiableby the standard of revelation itself Not only so, our unde $tanding of that revelation--ourtheology--will necessarily and properly influence our understandii ofthe doctrine ofrevelation.THE MUTUAL RELATIONS OF REVELATION, THEDTRINE OF REVELATION,AND THE OTHER LOCI OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY


10/216

II. Revelation i s IntentionalThe comment that our doctrine of revelation will be influenced or pervaded by the rest of ou rtheology becomes important whenwe discuss th e fac t th at revelation is intentional. This assertioni s warranted and demanded by the Reformed and biblical doctrine ofGod.

A. Revelation is Intentional in the sense that it was not necessary fo r God to revealHimself Revelation is an act ofgratuitous, divine initiative.1 . Foundation

The assertion that revelation was no t necessary, bu t gratuitous i s grounded in the attribute ofGodknown as the divine aseity or self-sufficiency. God i s independent, self-sufficient, complete inHimself If God had not revealed himself, He would have remained to all eternity infmitely,perfectly happy in Himself He i s the blessed and only sovereign.2 . Qualification

This assertion i s not to be understood as though once God had created the world and man in theway He d id that revelation was still optional. This assertion does no t mean that God cou ld h aveelected no t to reveal after choosing to create in the way He did. Th e choice to create whi le free andunnecessary was a choice to reveal Himself. For th e creation of the world and man was a revelationofhimself which itself implied further revelation. The Westminster Confession ofFaith and the1689 Baptist Confession both re ad at chapter 4, paragraph 1 : "It pleased God the Father, Son, andHoly Ghost for the manifestation of the glory of his e te rnal power, wisdom, and goodness ... tocreate ... the world."3 . Application

Our response to a revelation by such a being ofHimself to us should be marked by a humblegratitude. God did not need to, bu t he was pleased to reveal Himself to us .B. Revelation is intentional in the sense that it is the essent ial means to the h ighe stintention, the ultimate m otivation fo r all things.

1 . FoundationThis assertion i s founded in the divine supremacy sovereignty. The ultimate goal of all creation i sto bring glory to God. This i s the only proper goal f or, "He i s th e b les sed and only sovereign theKing ofKings and Lord ofLords" 1 Tim. 6:15. No les se r motivation i s fitting fo r the Most HighGod.

Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed,1976, 9 .

6


11/216

2 . Explanation.The revelation ofHimself and H is perfections is the essential meajfls to the end ofthe glory ofGod.Thu s, th e Confession quoted above finds the rationale fo r creatil$i in the revelation of the d iv ineperfect ions. Creation was fo r revelation.1 The goal ofrevelation not ultimately soteriological oranthropological. It is theological and doxological.

3 . Application.Thus all proper interaction with theWord ofGod i s to produce th worship and praise ofthat God.Interaction with the Word ofGod that deviates from this purpose iillegitimate.

C. Revelation i s intentional and therefore never unco1cious or casual.1 . Foundation

This assertion i s grounded in the divine omniscience--the infinit wisdom of God. Th e glory ofGods wisdom is not that he knows all about his creation. This kiwledge, though incredibly vast,i s no t infinite-for creation i s not infinite. The glory of divineflOmniscience i s that God knowsHimself--the infinite reaches ofhis own being and deeds-perfectl: completely, exhaustively.

2 . ExplanationRevelation, therefore, can never be uncon scious . God knows afltliat He himself does, has done,will d o. Kuyper says, "The casual dropping of a remark does notftoccur with respect to the Eternalbeing, since the casual and unconscious doing of a thing i s not p*dicable of God."2 Revelation i salways fully conscious on th e part of God. The corolla ry to thiis that revelation does not haveGod for its object. God i s not revealing himself to himself "...,tltiere is no involuntary revelation.This re fu te s the idea that God could be more or less unconsciou.. of Himself, or that he could beseen by us in his works wi thou t his willing or knowing it.... All representations of this sort,therefore, which have c rept more and more into theology, mus t b4:banished as impious, since theystart ou t essentially from the exaltation of man above God."3 This m ay seem foolish even tocontemplate, bu t much of liberal and process theology invol$s precisely this conception ofrevelation and perhaps Open Theism?.4 An important hennenutical implication of this i s thatGod understood and intended all the good and necessary inference contained in biblical revelation.Thus, all the necessary implications of revelation are revelation.

Kuyper notes this, Principles ofSacred Theology, 258-2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 250.3Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 2 53 , 2 54 .4Cf Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 11 9 , Kuyper, Principles ofSacredTheology, 314ff Note als o Berkhofs discussion ofthe biblical ofrevelation, 1 3 3 .

7


12/216

3 . ApplicationThe conscious, purposeful character of revelation rebukes two errors concerning revelation. Thepurposeful character of revelation rebukes a presumptuous curiosity to know m ore than God hasrevealed. It also rebukes a squeamish timidity to know all God has revealed. Either attitude callsinto question the wisdom of the divine purpose. Here are Thornwells perceptive comments on thisissue:

Whatsoever the Scriptures contain was designed by the Ho ly Spirit fo r our careful s tudy anddevout meditation, and we are required to search them habitual ly and prayerfully, since theyconta in the "words ofeternal life." The doctrines of the Bible cannot prove hurtful unlessthey are perverted by ignorance or wrested by abuse. In examining, however, the moremysterious features of revealed truth, there are two extremes widely different, bu t perhapsequally dangerous, into which there is hazard of running--presum ptuous curiosity on theone hand, and squeamish timidity on the o ther. Men of inquisitive and speculative mindsa re ap t to forget that there are limits set to human investigation and research, beyond whichit i s impossible to pas s w ith safety or satisfaction. To intrude with confidence into theunrevealed secrets of Gods wisdom and purpose manifests an arrogance and haughtiness ofintellectwhich cannot fail to incur the marked disapprobation ofHeaven, and s hould alwaysmeet the prompt reprobation of the p ious . Whatsoever i s useful to be known God haskindly and graciously revealed, and it argues no less ingratitude than presumption toattempt to be "wise above what i s written." Theology has a lready suffered greatly from thepride of human intellect. Men, anxious to know m ore th an God has thought proper tocommunicate, or secretly dissatisfied with the form in which statements of Divine truth aremade in the Bible, have recur red to philosophy and science to improve or to explain thedoctrines of revelation. Sometimes the Scriptures stop too short, and then metaphysics andlogic mus t be called in to trace theft disclosures to the secre t recesses of the eternal mind.Sometimes the Scriptures and philosophy, "falsely so called," come into collision, and thenthe former mus t go through an exegetical transformation, so as to wear the shape which thelatter would impress on them. All this is a wide departure from that simplicity of faith withwhich the Word ofGod should alway s be received. "All Scripture i s given by inspiration ofGod ," and to quarrel with it, or to attempt to push our investigations beyond it, i s just toquarrel with the wisdom and goodness of the Deity Himself It i s tacitly charging the HolySpirit with keeping back from men what it i s important to their happiness to know. A deepconviction of the fullness and suff iciency of the Scriptures, comb ined with a hearty regardfo r their disclosures , i s the only effectual check to this presumptuous pride of intellect.But while some thus madly attempt to overleap the boundaries which God has set to theirknowledge, others, through excessive caution, are afraid to know what the Lord has actuallyrevealed. This squeamish timidity i s no less dishonoring to God, as it supposes that He hascommunicated some truths, in a moment of unlucky forgetfulness, which it would havebeen bette r to conceal, and flatly and palpably contradicts the assertion of Paul that allScripture i s "profitable." Ifwe suffer ourselves to be deterred from a fearless exposition ofDivine truth by the cavils and perversions ofprofane minds, we may just surrender all thatconstitutes the Gospel a peculiar system, and make up ou r m inds to be content with theflimsy disclosures of Deism or the cheerless darkness of Atheism. The doctrines of the

S


13/216

Trinity, of the incarnation ofthe Son, ofthe covenants, oijmputation, etc., are all made thescoff of the impudent and th e jest of the vain. Pauls dtrines were perverted to unholypurposes by the false apostles, bu t all the ir defamation a$ reproach could not make Paulashamed ofthe truth, nor afraid to preach it. "One hoofc4Eivine truth," says the venerableErskine, "is not to be kept back, though a whole reproba world should break their neckson it." "The Scripture," says Calvin, "is the school oftheHo1y Spirit, in which, as nothinguseful or necessary to be known i s omitted, so nothing is ught which it i s not beneficial toknow ." While, then, a presumptuous curiosity, on the c$e h and, m ay no t be allowed tocarry us beyond the Scriptures, let not a sickly timidity, or$the other, induce us to fall belowthem. "Let the Christian man," as Calvin again says, "op4p h is heart and his ears to all thediscourses addressed to him by God, only wi th this mo4ration, that as soon as the Lordcloses H is sacred mouth he a ls o s ha ll desist from furth inqu iry. T his will be the best

This assertion i s grounded in the b ib lical doctrine of man. 4gain, therefore, ou r doctrine ofrevelation i s influenced by ou r theology. The Bible teaches that man was c reated by God as theimage ofGod. This doctrine profoundly controls ou r doctrine ofkevelation. As Gods image, mani s the ectype of which God is the arch etyp e. God i s the origina. of which man i s the copy. Putanother way, we could say that there i s certain analogy or likene$ which God has created betweenGod and man. Two things mus t be said by way of exposition of the biblical concept ofthe analogybetween God and man.First, it i s true analogy. T here i s a bonafide similarity. Second it i s only analogy. T here i s nopoint of identity. Man i s like God in one sense, bu t it i s the heigl$t ofdepravity fo r him to attemptto be like God in another sense. "Man can never in any sense, out$row his creaturehood. This putsa definite connotation into the expression that man i s like God. He i s like God, to be s ure, bu talways on a creaturely scale."2 Man does not participate in the diffine essence or exis tence . Thereare and remain two kinds ofbeing, tw o kinds ofexistence: infinitelbeing and finite being.

James Henley Thornwell, The Collected Writings of... Elinburgh: Banner ofTruth Trust,1974 2 : 105-108.2Van Til , Defense ofthe Faith, 13 -14 .

barrier of sobriety, if in learning we no t only follow theceases to teach we give up our desire of learning. It i s athat it is the glory ofGod to conceal a thing. But as bothat this i s not to be unders tood generally of everythixdistinction, lest we content ourse lves wi th brutish ignoraand sobriety. Now, this distinction i s clearly expressedsecret things belong unto the Lord our God, bu t those thinEus and to our children, that we may do all the words oftlhow he enforces on the people attention to the doctrinedecree, because it pleased God to promulgate it; and restrlimits with this single reason, tha t it i s not law ful fo r molGod."

III. Revelation i s Analogical

jdings ofGod, bu t as soon as Heebrated observation ofSolomon,piety and common sense suggestwe mu st s eek fo r the properpe under the pretext of modestyin a few words by Moses: Thewhich are revealed belong untoi law. Deut. 2 9 : 2 9 . For we seef the law, only by the celestial& n s the same people wi th in thoseals to intrude in to the s ec rets of

9


14/216

All ofthis i s crucial fo r our understanding of revelation. Since the relat ion between God and manin general i s that of analogy, when the issue of Gods revelation to man and mans consequentknowledge is discussed, analogy mus t be a dom inant consideration. Revelation mus t be thought ofas ana logic al. Thus our knowledge ofGod is ectypal. Gods knowledge ofGod i s archetypal. Ourknowledge ofGod is a copy of Gods knowledge. The terminology, accommodation, i s of ten usedhere. The terminology is unwise. It tends to the idea that some distortion ofthe knowledge ofGodwas inevitable in revelation. It mus t be remembered that God created the subject to whom Hewanted to reveal himself with the intention of so doing. Man was adapted by creation to knowGod. "H e does no t follow a way of communication, that happens accidentally to be present, bu tthat He Himself lays out th e way ofcommunication in keeping with H is purpose."1 Mans knowledge of God is , therefore , t rue knowledge. It i s an accurate picture of God.Kuyper even calls it a whole p ic tu re , " In the self-knowledge of God the re a re not ten parts, six ofwhich he has decided to reveal unto us.... the whole image has been reflected to us in Revelation."22 Mans knowledge of God i s not identical with Gods knowledge. Man does no t know Godas God knows God. H is knowledge i s not comprehensive. H is knowledge i s anthropomorphic. Heknows God only by means of the divinely created analogies of divine existence which pervadehuman existence. He knows God not by imm ediate intuit ion as God knows himself, but only bythe media of the analogies of human ex is tence. A ll revelation i s in this sense mediate. Mansknowledge i s only a finite copy ofGods knowledge ofGod.

Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 257.2Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 256.

1 0


15/216

IL .

DIVINE REVELATIONACCURj.TEANDANALOGICAL

1 Two K inds ofBeing and Knowledge 2 TheiFoute ofRevelation in GeneralGOD = Infinite Being and Knowledge God

Creation = Finite Being and Knowledge cre ion"V

revelation3 The Route ofRevelation Explained 4 The .oute ofRevelation Illustrated

GOD = DIVI [ B REALITY GOD T H . . S O N DIVINE LOVE

Creation - Cr ated Analogy hum? s o n s h i p human love

Revelation - Revelatory Concept Jesus iS Gods SonGod is LoveNOTES:1 The finite revelatory concept i s only analogical of Gods knowledge of the D IV INEREALITY. It i s no t identical with it. Note the absence of capita!S below the line of transcendenceare intended to illustrate this.2 Revelation always proceeds through the c reated analogy from the DIVINE REALITY.This guarantees its accuracy. T he D ivine creative purpose adpted creation to be a means fo rrevelation th at w ou ld not distort that revelation. God accommolaled man and creation to himselfbefore He accommodated H is revelation to man.

1 1


16/216

SECTION 2 : THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATIONI. Th e Historical Background ofthe Two Kinds ofRevelation

A. In the ApologistsThe distinction between tw o types of revelation was s een early in the history of the Christianthough t. Perhaps the first conscious reflection on it i s to be found in the Apologists of the Secondcentury. In particular, the writings of Justin Martyr are important. Seeberg tells u s, "The apologistsundertook.... to set forth Christianity in forms intelligible to the cultured classes of their age." Inthis endeavor the Apologists were the first to consciously reflect on Christ ian truth in relation to thesurrounding heathenism. To them, therefore, may be traced, as Seeberg suggests, the beginnings ofChristian theology.The Apologists attem pted to communicate Christianity to theft generation by adapting fo r Christianpurposes the Logos speculation of the Greek philosophers. The Greek philosophers had developedthe concept of the Logos as a way of mediating the supreme being to the world. This was toprofoundly influence Trinitarian thought in succeeding centuries--not always positively. Theconnection ofthe Apologists thinking on revelation with this conception should arouse ou r caution.The distinction between two categories of revelation was also motivated in the Apologists by anexcessive respect fo r th e Greek philosophers. Heraclitus and Socrates, as well as Abraham, werethought to be Christians before Christ.2 Notwi ths tanding these cautionary considerations , theApologists th inking deserves study. It was the Apostle J ohn w ith full knowledge of its secularmeaning who affirm ed that Jesus w as the Logos John 1:1-18. It was the Apostle Paul whoaffirmed that all men possess a certain revelation ofGod Rom. 1:18-20.Justin Martyrs doctrine in this regard is the most clearly elaborated of th e Apologis ts . Ju stindistinguishes 1 a human teaching avOpcoiao tacicaXta der ived through the operation of thedivine logos, and 2 a Christian teaching far superior derived from the actual incarnation of thedivine logos.3 Says Kelly, "His starting-point was the current maxim tha t reason the germinallogos = ?oyo oncptanico was what united men to God and gave them knowledge ofHim."4 Thelight that all men have i s implanted by the d iv ine reason, th e Logos of God, who i s universallyactive and present in the highest goodness and intelligence wherever they may be found. Like theSower the Logos had s ow n s eed s aitcppa tot Xoyou of truth among the Greek philo sopher s.They "had, thus, been enabled to arrive at fragmentary facets of truth.5 Justin, an eclectic, found1Reinhold Seeberg, History ofDoctrines, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978, 1 :110.2W. Walker, A History of the Christian Church, New York: Chalres Scribners Sons, 1970 4.3Seeberg, History ofDoctrines, 1 :111 f.4 J . N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, New York : Harper & Row, 1978 9 6.5Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 96 .

1 2


17/216

truth in the different schools ofGreek philos ophers . T he teachijg ofChristianity excelled that ofthe Greeks becau se its teaching was derived not from seeds sown by the Logos, but by theincarnation and teaching ofthe ent ire Logos to Xoyucou tot oA.mj.JUSTIN MARTYRS DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

LaosSperniatikos

pGreek Phi lo sophers 4*brist

Human Teaching Christian Tbachingpartial, fallible complete, i4allible

B. In the Scholastics.1 . Augustine

Any treatment ofthe Scholastics and th e medieval period mus t beg in with Augus tine. In Augustinethe distinction between tw o kinds of revelation becomes a distijction between faith and rea son.While there i s some tendency to ascribe to reason an excessive inportance, Augustine believes in arational proof fo r Gods existence, his basic position i s oppose4 to this. Augustines, "Credo utintel ligam," summarizes his position. All knowledge begins in faith.22 . Anselm

Anselm, an Augustinian, adopted Augus tines mot to , bu t he wen4 on to accentuate and enla rge theplace and ability of reason. One came to know by faith Christian t*tth, but one could then prove byreason Christian truth. In this conviction he embodied key attitu4s ofthe later high Scholasticismof Aquinas and others. Reason i s consistent with faith and conetent not only to understand itsW . Walker, A History ofthe Christian Church, 46.2 G . H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, 225-226.

Incair

1 3


18/216

doctrines, bu t to prove them.3 . Aquinas

Iii Aquinas the c las sic , scholastic synthesis of faith and reason was reached. The same optimisticview of reason i s present, bu t Aquinas has a more carefully worked ou t view ofthe relat ion of faithand reason.In one sense, Aquinas limi ts the place of reason in a way that Anselm did not. Certain truths oftheology cannot be proven by reas on. T he Trinity i s a truth of faith no t reason. Reason may showthat th is truth i s no t irrational, bu t it cannot demonstrate its reality. On the other hand, Aquinasdefinitely disagrees wi th August ines motto, "I believe in order to understand." To believe a truthand to know it by reason at the s ame time is impossible. Ifone knows it, he can no longer believei t . 2 Understanding completes and puts an end to faith. Again, Aquinas disagrees wi th Augustinescontention tha t the existence ofGod is self-evident.3This i s significant for Aquinas theology. Natural theology which is the knowledge of God whichmay be derived by reason from natural revelation becomes the connecting link between philosophythe product of reason and theology the product of faith. Certain truths are both revealed andrational, i.e., the existence ofGod. Natural theology i s thus the foundation and apology oftheologyproper.4

Clark, Thales to Dewey, 253-254.2Clark, Thales to Dewey, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957 2 71 , 2 72 .3Clark, Thales to Dewey, 272 f .4Clark, Thales to Dewey, 272 .

1 4


19/216

THE PATH OF INTELLECTUAL P1OGRESSACCORDING TO AQUINAtILLUSTRATION #1: THE OVERLAPPING CIRCLES

HILL OF NATURAL

-2&TURAL THEOLOGT-.

L PHILOSOPHYIn Aquinas v iew a dichotomy was, thus, erected between kowledge and faith,authority, and natural and supernatural revelation.4. The Late Scholastics John Duns Scotus afl4 William ofOccam

In the later scholastics, the key attitudes that governed scholastiism were s up erced ed . Both theoptimism with respect to the abilities of reas on and th e optimis th wi th respect to the compatibili tyof faith and rea son were que stioned . This wedge between faitl and reason would result in thedenial of the faith in Renaissance Humanism and the subordi$tion of reason in ReformationChristianity.

C. In the Reformation. HG . H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, 2 9 6 - 2 9 7

Reason andPhilosophy

4

The RealmofRationalDemonstration

NaturalTheology

Faith andTheologyThe RealmofDivineMystery

ILLUSTRATION # 2: THE SOIL OF PHILOSOPHY, THETHEOLOGY AND THE HOUSE OF FAITH

reas on and

1 5


20/216

Both Luther and Calv in disliked and rejected the medieval emphasis on r ea son and philosophy infavor of the sola scrjptura. They mainta ined the distinction between natu ra l and supematuralrevelation. God spoke both via nature and the Scriptures. At this point an important distinctionmus t be noted which set the Reformers off from Rome and produced a radically different t reatm entof these two categories of reve lation. Rome assumed that human reason, at least, was unfallen;while the Reformers ta ught the total depravity ofman.This means that while th ere is natural revelation, there can be no natural th eology. Man in hisdepravity never a llows natural revelation to reach its goal. Rather, he suppresses, perverts, anddistorts it so that no effective knowledge of God results. Scripture alone as applied by the Spiritcan now be the means of bringing us to a true knowledge of God. It was, therefore, the solascriptura and the solo gratia with its attendant doctrine of sin which molded the Reformationdoctrine ofnatural and supernatural revelation.Calvins treatment of this subject i s the classic elaboration of it. It will be useful to summarize ithere. The relevant chapters of the Institutes are Book 1:3-7.a The human mind naturally and indelibly i s endued with the sense of deity 1:3:1,3. Therei s no need ofthe proofs of schools 1:3:3, cf. 1:5:9.b Human depravity prevents the sense of deity sensus deitatis and th e attendant seeds ofreligion semen religionis in the human hear t f rom producing true knowledge ofGod 1:4:1,4.c Gods revelation ofHimself in creation both ofthe external world and ofman himself andin providence i s clear and conspicuous 1:5:1, 2 , 11 , 15; 6:1, 6:2, but because of the depravity ofmen is inadequate to impart a clear knowledge ofGod 1:5,11,14,1 52d Scripture is, therefore, necessary fo r the obtaining of a true knowledge not only of salvationbu t ofGod the creator 0:6:1,3; 1:6:2.e The testimony of the Spirit i s necessary fo r the acknowledgement of the authority ofScripture 1:7:4, 1:7:5.Thus, if men are to profi t from natural revelation th ey need f irs t the spectacles ofthe Scriptures andthe eyes ofregeneration.3 Moreover, ones understanding ofnature because of remaining depravitywill always have to be double-checked with the Bible.4

For Luther see Seeberg, History ofDoctrines, 2 ; 2 2 4 , 2 9 9 .2Contra Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 127.3 C f . Van Til in The Infallible Word, Philipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978, 281 .4 C f . Van Til in The Infallible Word, 28 2 .

1 6


21/216

D. In Later ProtestantismSeveral posit ions have been defended in Late r P ro te stantism . Thep may be quickly traced.

1 . Engl ish Deism and Liberalism were captu4d by the thinking ofRenaissancehum anism . They denied all special revelation and made re4son with natural revelation theprincipium of all knowledge.2 . Much of conservative Protestantism inclu4irg some of its Reformed wingunder the influence of Descartes reverted to a dichotomy akin t q i . that of Aquinas. They stressedreason, natural revelation, and natural theology as the preamble thith. An apologetics was builton the use ofreason and natural revelation.3 . Neo-orthodoxy reacted to Liberalism w n t beyond Calvin and deniedgeneral revela tion. There is only special revelation.4. A segment of the Reformed Protestan4sm understood and developed

Calvins views. These taught that special revelation while presuosing natural revelation was thesole principle of theology and the principium unicum.A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT EWSOF REVELATION AND NATURAL T}*OLOGYGeneral Revelation Special Revel*ion Natural Theology

Liberalism & Deism Yes No YesNeo-Orthodoxy No Yes NoArmiianism and Yes Ye s YesPrinceton CalvinismButler, Warfie ldAmsterdam Yes Ye s NoCalvin, Van TilI I . The Bib l ica l Bas is for th e Two K inds ofRevelation

A. Psalm 1 9There are two passages which are very helpful in establishing tij biblical bas is for a distinctionbetween tw o kinds ofrevelation and understanding the significa, of this d istin ction. Th ey areCf Ed Klooster in hi s unpubl i shed Introduction to Systematic Thology, 194 .

1 7


22/216

Psalm 1 9 and Romans 1 :18-3 :20 .On the surface ofPsalm 1 9 lies the fact that there are two great sources of the knowledge ofGod.In other words, God reveals Himself to men in two distinct ways. The significance of thisdistinction can be bes t unders tood and viewed by means of a graph comparing the revelation ofverses 1-6 with the revelation ofverses 7-14.

TWOKINDS OF REVELATIONIN PSALM 19THE REVELATION OF VV. 1 -6 THE REVELATION OF VV. 7-14

SOURCE Gods Creation The Written Law[Note especially vv. 1 and 2 .] [Note v. 7 and the synonyms for thelawusedinvv.7-ll.]CONTENT The Glory ofGod as Creator Jehovah, the Redeemer[Note especially vv. 1 and 4 .] [Note the absence of this name in vv.1-6, its 7-fold use in vv. 7-14 , and v.14. ]SCOPE Universal Limited[Note vv. 3-6.] [Cf Psa. 1 4 7: 1 9 ,2 0 and note the term,servant in v. 1 1 and Jehovahs titles inv. 14.]CLAffiTY Clear Clear[Notevv. 1,2.] [Notevv. 7, 8.]EFFECT Effective for the Production ofCovenant L?fe[Note vv.7-9, 114

B. Romansl:18-3:20Romans 1 : 18 - 3 : 20 in many details follows Psalm 19 . This i s not su rp ris ing because a closeexamination ofPauls reasoning in the passage shows that he was thinking of Psalm 1 9 when hewrote it. Many contextual indications s ugges t th at boundary line between the two kinds ofrevelation discussed in this passage i s to be drawn after 2 : 16 .1 1 :16 speaks of Jews and Greeks. There i s no narrowing of the scope in v. 1 8 where thoseconsidered are called men, i.e., men in general.2 1 :18 -32 i s not concerned with Gentiles only. Verse 23 alludes to Ps. 1 06 :2 0 and Jer. 2 : 11which speak directly of Jews.

1 8


23/216

3 There is nothing to indicate a change of scope in 2 :1 . The language i s universal "everyman ofyou who passes judgment." The language is consequenal having to do with the resultsof someth ing a lr eady said. "Therefore ," connects this with *e foregoing. The language, ofpassing judgment while appropriate to Jews, is also applicable t Gentiles 2:15.4 Both J ew s and Greeks are considered in the body of2:146. Cf especially 2:6-15. Howinappropriate to pu t these verses in a pas sage wh ich i s supposed:io be dealing with J ew s on ly!5 Note the occurrence of the term, men av8pwiro in beth 1 :18 and 2 : 16 . Its occurrencebrackets the section and suggests that in its entirety it deals withznen in general6 The transition or shift to Pauls treatment of Jews in paricWar is clear ly marked. Note v.17. Throughout 1 : 18-3 :8 this is the only c lear transition or shift lb the scope ofreference.Again a chart will help us to place its teaching about the two kinds or categories of revelationclearly before us.

1 9


24/216

TWO K INDS OF REVELATION IN ROMANS 1:18-3:20THE REVELATION OF 1:18-2:16 THE REVELATION OF 2:17-3:20

SOURCE Gods Creation The Written Law[external creation, 1 : 1 9 , 2 0 ] [Note 2 : 17-20; 3 : 2 . ][internal creation, 2 : 1 4 , 15]CONTENT Godas Creator and Judge God as Creator, Judge, and[including H is law, wrath, power, Redeemerwisdom, and goodness 1:18, 2 0, 2 1 , [Note 3:1,2,9-20.]3 2 ; 2 : 4 , 14 , 15]SCOPE Universal Limited[Men in general 1:18-2:16] [The Jews primarily in the OldTestament 2:17-20; 3 : 1 , 2]CLARITY Clear Clear[Making men to know God and leaving [The embodiment of knowledge andmenwithout excuse 1:19-21] truth, the law enables men to knowGods will 2:18, 20.]EFFECT Condemnation Covenant Blessing andCursing[Revealing Gods w rath and leaving [Note 3 : 1 , 2 .]men without excuse 1:18-20]

C. Other Biblical ConsiderationsBoth in Psalm 1 9 and in Romans 1 : 1 8-3 : 2 0 th e basic distinction between two kinds ofrevelation i sthe same. There i s Gods revelation in creation. There i s Gods revelation in the written law ofGod. The written law ofGod i s th e means ofthe redemption ofGods people. Therefore, the NewTestament that i s both written and th e means of r edemp tion mus t be viewed as part of the secondcategory or kind ofrevelation.The boundary line between the two categories of revelation is , therefore, becoming clear. Yetconfusion may still exis t wi th reference to some questions raised. One key question has to do withwhat category the revelation of Gen. 2 : 4-2 5 should be placed in. Kuyper thinks because it i sbefore the fall that it i s part of the natural p rincip ium. Th is wou ld imp ly that it i s part ofgeneralrevelation. Others only distinguish between redemptive and non-redemptive revelation. Becausethe fall h as not yet occurred in Gen. 2 : 4 - 25 , it cannot be r edemp tive revela tion. Th is would alsomean that it i s general revelation.Contrary to such reasoning, this revelation mus t be s een, like the revelation ofPsalm 19 :7-14 andRomans 2 : 171 , as special or positive revelation. There are the following considerations:

2 0


25/216

1 The sou rce of the revelation ofPsa. 19 :1-6 and Rom. 1 : l-2: 1 6 i s creation. The revelationof Ps. 19 :7-14 and Rom. 2:17f had its source in part at lea* in the physical appearance ortheophany of God at Mount Sinai. The revelation of Gen. 24f. definitely fits into the lattercategory.2 This view of Gen. 2 : 4 - 25 i s confirmed by an interestin parallel between Psalm 1 9 andGenesis I and 2 . Jehovah, we know, is Gods covenant title. Botl in Gen. 1 : 1 -2 : 3 and in Psa. 1 9 :1 -6 this title i s absent with the title, ElohiIn, used without exception1 time in Ps. 19 :1 -6 , 2 9 times inGen. 1:1-2:3. In both Gen. 2 :4 and Ps. 1 9 : 7 there i s a stnkm commencement of th e u se of thetitle, Jehovah. 11 times J ehovah God i s mentioned in Gen. 2 :4-5. 7 times Jehovah is mentionedin Ps. 19 :7 -14 . In these passages the use ofElohim by itself i s abslnt.3 The objections to this view can be answered . F or instanc$, some say that the revelation ofGen. 2 : 4 - 25 i s not redemptive, while that of Ps. 19 :7-14 and Rdfr. 2:17f is. The solution to th isdifficulty lies in the remembering that there i s a pre-fall and postfall phase in both "general" and"special" revelat ion. Romans 1 : 1 8f. definitely teaches that after4 fall Gods wrath is revealed viacreat ion, but this could not have been the case before the fall w h there was no sin in creation. Inthe same way the goodness of God original ly revealed in creatn now after th e fall becomes arevelation of common grace: Gods goodness to sinful men. Th$, after the fal l general revelationGods wrath and common grace, things it d id not r evea l b4fore the fall. Likewise, that kindof revelation which we now know as redemptive existed in a dizent phase before the fall. Ifwecall this covenant revelation we may say that the Scriptures the present form of covenantrevelation are redemptive because they are postfall covenant rAelation. Even pre-fall covenantrevelation had the same ultima te goa l as redemptive revelation:j: the confirmation of man in aneternal life ofhappiness and holiness.It appears that the Bible teaches tha t there has a lways been two k!ds of revelation. Yet both the secategories of revelation were modified at th e fall of man. Ther4. have always been tw o kinds ofrevelation, bu t these two kinds of revelation were both modified $ b important ways by th e fall andredemption. We must conc lude , therefore, that Geerhardus Vosd Van Til following him wereprecisely biblical in regard to this mat ter. Let me remind you agin of the diagram by which theirposition on this matter was summarized. It summarizes the biblica1 view as well.

2 1


26/216

THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATIONTHE VIEW OF VOS AND VAN TIL}

III. The Proper Terminology fo r the Two Kinds ofRevelationA. The Historical Options

Though historical theology informs us ofa general distinction between two categories of revelation,much con fu s ion has arisen through the cloudiness of the exact line of demarcation between thecategories. The different terminology used by theologians indicates this problem. This distinctionhas been articulated in terms ofNatural and Supernatural Revelation. Yet we may ask the question,Is not natural revelation supernatural in origin? It has been s ta ted in terms ofGeneral and Specialrevelation. But still we may ask, Is all revelation that i s general i.e. common to mankind to bedistinguished from special revelation? Is the so-called "covenant of w orks" and the Noahiccovenant general r evela tion? Another terminology i s Pre-lapsarian and Post-lapsarian revelation.Again, however, the question may be raised of the legitimacy of seeing the revelation ofGen. 2:4fas the same as the revelation through creation, rather than substantial ly identical with the revelationfinally contained in th e B ible. Theologians h ave als o spoken of Natural and Sote rio logicalRevelation. But still it may be asked, Is all non-natural revelation soteriological? What abou t Gen.2 : 4 f ?This survey ofthe terminology used emphas izes the confbsion and focuses our attention on two keycomplicating factors. On which side of the line does the revelation ofGen. 2:4f fall? More deeply,by what principle should the two categories of revelation be distinguished?

B. The Detailed DiscussionAll the terminological dist inctions mentioned above fall short ofbeing satis fac tory . Pre-lapsarianand Post-lapsarian, as well as , natural and soteriological miss the ftindamental distinction. Generaland spec ia l might be adequate if properly defined, but historical ly general revelation has been madeto include aspects of covenant revelation. This terminology also fails to grasp the tbndamentaldistinction or difference between the two kinds of revelation. Natural and supernatural revelationhas often been properly applied to the demarcation between the two kinds of revelation. Whenproperly understood not as defining the source but the means of revelation, it embodies animportant difference between the two categories. Of the historic terminology it i s most to bepreferred.Cf. Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 128 , Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology,379 .

2 2

Pre-Fall General RevelationPre-Fall Special Revelation

Post-Fall General RevelationRedemptive Special Revelation


27/216

The terminology of creation and covenant revelation may be sugcsted. The terminology, creationrevelation, used by KJooster suggests at once th e s cope, content, means and s ou rc e of naturalrevelation. The term, covenant revelation, suggests the content s cope, s ou rce, and th e d irectlypersonal character of its impartation. Two criticisms m ay be lodged against the terminology,covenant reve la tion. Some might argue that the dealings of God Fwith Adam were not covenantal.It has , indeed, been debated by theologians whether it i s proper to apply te rm, covenant , to theAdamic Administration. I would make no attempt to solve this difficulty. I wou ld ob serve,however, that it seems prope r to me to describe Gods dealing with Adam in a general sense ascovenanta l. Another objection is that all revelation i s covenant$L While valid , this objection maybe mitigated by the consideration that creation revelation is imply the context of covenantrevelation. It is , thus, only indirectly covenantal. Supernatural Irevelation i s directly covenantal,revealing the stipulations and promises at the heart of Gods de4jngs with man. James On says,"Supposing man to gain all that he could by general revelation, t still could not produce a livingfriendship."This criticism suggests an alternative terminology, natural nd positive revelation. Thisterminology notes that nature is the source ofnatural revelation. Supernatural revelation is alwaysa plus to nature. It i s never a "given" of creation, but somethingadditional to it, no t derived fromthe natural order. It always involves divine intervention in the ceated order. T hu s, it is properlycalled positive r evela tion. Th is terminology avoids the objectior to the terminology, supernaturalrevelation, which notes that all revelation i s supernatural. A 0 1 1 revelation i s supernatural in itssource, bu t it i s no t all something in addition to nature.IV . The Critical Comparison of the Two Kinds ofRevelationThe proper comparison ofCreation and covenant revelation mus t remember that they exi st side-by-s ide in two states: The original and the fallen state. Note the followirg diagram.

TWO KINDS OF REVELATION IN TWQ STATES

sOriginal State Fallen StateCreation Revelation

Covenant Revtion

Cf. the Westminster Confession of Faith 7:1 fo r this Cf . also J. I. Packers God HasSpoken, Downers Grove, IL : InterVarsity Press, 1979, 50 , 54 ,

2 3


28/216

A. The contrasts between creation and covenant revelation1 . In the Original StateCreation or Natural Revelation Covenant or Posit ive Revelation

Content: The Creator God--Elohim The Covenant God--YahwehMeans: Creation orNature Theophany involving verbal--external creation the heavens and earth communication. Not all that i s--internal creation the soul ofman utilized in covenant revelation i s

himself supernatural, but it i s only--ordinary providence controlling revelational because of itscreation association with the supernatural.Cf., for instance, the tree oflife.

Character: Indirect orMediate impersonal Direct or Immediate personal andcovenantal2 . In the Fallen State

While th e distinction between creation and covenant revelation was present, before the fall, it wasaccentuated by the fall. It became possible to possess the creation revelation without the covenantrevelation. This was an unnatural separation.

2 4


29/216

Creation or Natural Revelation Covennt or Posit ive RevelationContent: God as Creator an d Judge Under th e 1 Gc$i as Creator and Judgecurse creation now reveals the wrath of Beca* ofMans depravity, covenantGod. The original revelation ofthe revela*n mus t now re -p ub lis h thegoodness ofGod becomes , therefore , a conten$ ofcreation revelation. 2revelation of common grace. God asRedeemerMeans: Creation orNature The Supernatural - Verbal--external creation the heavens and conimijication between God and Hi searth--the cosmos peopleuay come through theophany,--internal creation the soul ofman prophepy, or inspiration, bu t it i shimself--the anthropos alwaysflsupernatural in its means. Not--ordinary providence as it controls all thats utilized in covenantcreation reveladon is supernatural, but it i s onlyrevelatjnal because of its associationwith th$ supernatural.Character: Indirect or Mediate impersonal Direct z Immediate personal andcoventtal The personal encounter

betwe* God and H is people i sclimaxd in the Incarnation.Recipients All Men in General The cornant people with certainnecessry qualifications--This i s in

contra$with the pre-fall covenantrevelalonwhich came to all men ingenera

HEffect: Nothing--Mans depravity perverts this True k4cwledge ofGod in the electrevelation and derives no true or savingknowledge ofGod from it.B. The similarities between creation and covenant revelation

Both in the original and fallen states creation and covenant revelation pos ses s th e attributes ofnecessity, authority, perspicuity, and sufficiency.1 . Necessity

Creation revelation even before the fall w as the necessary conte4. and presupposition of covenantrevelation. The subjection of creation to the curse--a cursed crea4n--was the necessary context ofredemption. HCf. Van Til, Infallible Word, 26 3 f .

25


30/216

2 . AuthorityBoth covenant and creation revelation are self-authenticating. They lay claim on man in thedeepest realities of his existence. Both a re d iv ine and, therefore, s pe ak w ith ab so lu te authoritytheir message.

3 . PerspicuityCreation revelation i s clear. It i s constant and abundant Psa. 1 9 :1 , 2 ; Rom. 1 : 1 9 , 20. The mysterythat must be expected in any revelation of the self-suff ic ient God to man does not negate the clari tyofHis revelation. Mystery and cla rity a re necessary corrolaries of human knowledge either innature or Scripture.

4. Sufficiency

Creation revelation was never intended to thnction independently. In that sense, it i s insufficient.Crea tion revelat ion i s no t sufficient to penetr ate human depravity and impart an effectiveknowledge of God. It was sufficient and i s sufficient fo r the purpose God intends fo r it: to be thecontext ofcovenant revelation. It is sufficient to render man without excuse fo r his sin.Concluding Note:This d is tinction between the categories of revelation enables us to reconcile two thoughts ofScripture. On the one hand, fallen men are without God in the world. On the other , in H im th eylive and move and exist Eph. 2 : 1 2 , Acts 14 :15-17 , Acts 17:28 Having creation revelation withinand without men are always near to God. This revelation i s indirect, impersonal, non-covenantal.As fallen men, men are without covenant revelation. This i s an unna tu ra l condition. They have nopersonal, covenantal contact with God. As such they are fa r from God , without God in the world:los t, run-aways , orphans . Thus man i s cast away from God and has no personal relation with himin his covenantal favor, while he i s always confronted wi th God in H is creation revelation.

C. The relationship between the categories ofrevelation1 . In the Original State

In Genesis 2 it i s obvious that man was confronted wi th both creation and covenant revelation fromearly in his existence. The impression i s even given th at th e first moments of his existencecombined both natural and positive revelation. This shows that far from any contradiction betweenthe tw o forms of revelation an original uni ty and mu tu al dependence is present. Both have thesame author, God; the same recipient, man; and th e same purpose the bringing of creation and itshead, man, to the goal oftheir existence.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Van Til in The Infallible Word, 274 f .26


31/216

2 . In the Fallen StateIt has already been noted that the separation and even, in cer*in respects, differences betweencreation and covenant revelation i s the product of the unnaturaleonditions produced by the fall.Kuyper says, "Both principia are one in God, and th e beam of this light i s only broken when thesoundness ofourhuman heart is broken by sin."

a . The dependence of covenant revel$tion on creation revelation. Thefall cannot change or alter the necessary unity of the two fonjs of revelation. Thus, covenantrevelation which has now become redemptive revelation still pre$upposes the existence of creationrevelation. That i s to say, it presupposes that man i s created cap*le ofknowing God and that he i sat every moment confronted with the revelation ofGod in himseliland the cosmos.2b. The priority ofcovenant revelatioito creation revelation.3 All this i snot to say that covenant revelation is dependent on the natural ens reaction to or use of creationrevelation. This reaction i s one of truth-suppression Rom. 1 : 1 81and unalloyed wickedness Rom.1:21-32. It is , thus, to creation revelation and not to natural teology that covenant redemptiverevelation now looks.4 To grant any priori ty to creation revelatio*Ias understood by the s inner overcovenant revelation i s ipso facto to sentence covenant revelatin to death. This i s done whennatural theology i s set side-by-side with spec ia l theology or worse yet when it i s made theapologetic foundation of special theology.5

It is for this reason that with Calvin, Kuyper, and Van Til th primacy and priority of specialrevelation covenant revelation orthe Scriptures mus t be malntned. Not only i s this redemptiverevelation the sole means by which God corrects the e th ical disjsition which causes man to be atruth-suppressor, bu t in the Scriptures the content of creatiot revelation i s republished as aneces sary a spec t of this redemptive revelation. The Scriptur are not a mere s upp lemen t tocreation revelation, bu t include a republication of its salient poin46

Abraham Kuyper , Principles ofSacred Theology, 378.2Cf. Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 374 ; 3753Van Til in The Doctrine ofScripture, 1 23 , 12 4.4 C f . Van Til, The Infallible Word, 2 80, 2 81 . Cf Kuyper, Prinqiples ofSacred Theology, p.376;377; 378.5Kuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 38 2 .6Contra Warfield, Collected Writings, vol. 1 , Revelation and I4$iration Grand Rap id s: Baker ,1981, 6,45 Note Rom. 1:18-3:20; Cf Van Til, Infallible Wor4 282.

27


32/216

PART 2 : REDEMPTIVE REVELATIONSECTION 1 : ITS INTRODUCTION--THE BIBLICAL TERMINOLOGYIntroduction:Any introduction to the biblical terminology mus t beg in by noting that there is a vas t bu lk ofmatterto be treated. This s hou ld not be surprising to us. The very subject-matter of the Bible i sredemptive revelation. Hence, there are an abundance of terms used wi th reference to revelation.I. Overview of the Biblical Terminology

A. Old TestamentNotwithstanding what has been said above, in the Old Tes tament there i s only one majorword to bestudied. It i s the root, GALAH rI.

1 . The Basic Meanings: Uncover, Remove, RevealThis word i s used of the removal of Israel into captivity Amos 1:5; 5:5; of the uncovering thenakedness of someone Lev. 18:6-19; ofthe uncovering the ea r or eye of someone in other wordsmaking something known or revealing something to them 1 Sam. 20 : 2 , 12 , 13 ; Num. 2 4 : 4 , 16;and ofthe revelation pe r se without the above f igure of speech Isaiah 40 :5 ; 53:1.

2 . The Relevant Meaning: RevealGALAH means to reveal something in the sense of uncovering, unveiling, or displaying it. Cfthese texts as illustrations Jer. 32 : 1 1 , 14 ; Isa. 4 9 : 9 ; 1 Sam. 14:8.

3 . The DifferentUsesIt i s used of man revealing something to man Prov. 18:2; God reveal ing something to man Job.12:22 and man revealing something to God Jer. 11 :20 ; 20:12.

4. The Prominent Texts wi th respect to Divine RevelationNote Am os 3 :7 ; 1 Sam. 2 : 2 7 ; 3 : 2 1 ; Job 3 3 :1 6; 1 2 : 2 2 ; Isa. 2 2 : 1 4 ; Isa. 40 :5 ; Isa. 53 :1 , 56: 1; Psa.9 8 : 2 ; Jer. 3 3 : 6 ; Psa. 11 9 : 18 ; Dan. 10:1. Note also in the Chaldee , Dan. 2:19,22,28,29,30.

B. New Testament1 . APOKALUPTOO amoicaXuirro and APOKALUPSIS wtoKaXDt

This roo t is the major translation ofGALAH in the LXX .a . Basic Meaning

28


33/216

1 Verb: Uncover, Reveal2 Noun: Revelation, Discloswe

b. Significant Uses1 It i s used ofthe public disclosure of the thoughts and actionsofmen 1 Cor. 3 : 1 3 ; Luke 2 : 35 , 12 : 2 ,Mat. 10:26.2 It i s used of the actualizatiqn and historical manifestation ofevents surrounding the s econd coming.

a Of th e s econd comi4g itself Luke 17 :30 ; 1 Cor. 1:7.b Of the glory oftheSons of God Rom. 8:18 , 19 ; 1Pet. 5:1.c Of the judgmentRm. 2:5 cf 1 Cor. 3:13.d Of the apostasy and the antichrist 2 Thess. 2 : 3 , 6, 8.

3 Of the historical actu4zation and manifestation ofredemption.a In events ofredempon Rom. 16 :25, 2 6; Gal. 3:23.b In revelations to Apqstles Gal. 1:16; Eph. 3 : 3 , 5.c In epochal preachiig of the gospel to all nationsRom. 1 :17 cf 16:25.d In the actual ilIumfiation of individuals John 12 : 38 ;Phil. 3 : 15 ; L uk e 2 : 3 2 ; Eph. 1:17; 1 Cor. 2:10.e In the special gifts Qf the Spirit 1 Cor. 1 4: 26, 3 0; 2Cor. 12 : 1 , 7; Gal. 2 : 2 ; 1 Cor. 2:10?.

4 Of the revelation of the wrath of God in natural revelationRom. 1:18, 192 . PHANER000 pavcpoco; PHANEROQSIS pcivcpcooi; PHANEROSqavspo

This word i s an infrequent translation ofGALAH in th e LXX .a . Basic Meanings

2 9


34/216

1 Verb: Reveal, make known, show2 Noun: Disclosure, Announcement3 Adjective: Vis ib le , C lear , Open, Plain, Evident , Known, the

open, public notice.b. Significant Uses

1 It is used of the manifestation of the thoughts, actions , andcharacters ofmen1 Cor. 3 : 1 3 ; 1 1 : 1 9 ; 1 John2:19; 3 : 10 ; John3:21; Mk. 4:22,2 Cor. 5:10, 11.2 It i s used of the manifestation of the Creator in naturalrevelation Rom. 1:19.3 It i s used of the resurrect ion appearances of Jesus Mk.

16 :12 , l4;John2l:1, 14.4 It is used of the disclosures surrounding th e s econd comingofChrist 1 Cot 4:5; Col. 3 : 4 ; 1 Peter 5 : 4 ; I John 2 :2 8, 3 :2 ; Rev. 15:4.5 It i s used ofthe disclosure ofredemption in Christ--

a By its events John 1 : 31 , 2 : 1 1 ; R omans 3 : 2 1 , 16 :26;Col. 1 : 26 ; 1 Tim. 3 : 16 ; 2 Tim. 1:10; Heb. 9 : 2 6; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 1 : 2 ; 3:5,8,4:9.b By its preaching 2 Cor. 2 : 1 4 ; 4 : 10 ,11 ; Col. 4 : 4 ;

Titus 1 :3 ; II Cor. 4:2.6 It i s used of the special disclosures ofthe Spirit which are orground the gifts ofthe Spirit 1 Cor. 12:7.

3 . GNOORIDZOO yvwpoa . Basic Meanings:

1 Make known, revea l2 Know Phil. 1:21

b. Significant Uses1 Of Jesus making known the Father to the d is cip les John15:15, 17:26 , cf qxzvcpoco in John 17:6

30


35/216

2 Of Gods making known the mystery ofChrist to men Rom.16 :26 ; Eph. 1 :9 , 3 :3 ,5 , 6 : 1 9 ; Col. 1:27.3 Of Gods determination to 4ake known H is power and wrathand H is riches ofgrace Rom. 9 : 2 2 , 23.4 Of God through angels making known the incarnation Luke2:15.

4. Other New Testament Terminologya . PHAINOO qxnvco means to shine or appear Mat. 2 4 : 27 , 30 ; John5:35; Phil. 2 : 15 ; 2 Pet. 1 : 1 9 ; 1 John 2:8.b. EPIPHAINOO cltupatvw whichi means to show, appear Luke1:79 ; Titus 2 : 1 1 , Titus 3:4.c . EPIPHANEIA cinqxzvcta whfrh means an appearing orappearance. IntheNew Testament this word i s always used of th* second advent.d. DEIKNUMI cucvitt which mans 1 point out, show , makeknown; 2 explain, prove.e . DEIL000 &riXoco which mean to reveal, make clear, s how 1Cor. 3 : 1 3 ; Heb. 9 :8; 12 : 27 ; 1 Peter 1 : 11 , 14.f EXEIGEOMAI ciyysoj.tat whic1 means to explain, interpret, tell,report, describe John 1:18.g. CI-IREIMATIDZOO ypisan4o :w1i1i means 1 when u sed ofGod: to impart a revelation; 2 to bear a name, be called or name4 Man. 2 : 1 2 , 2 2 ; Luke 2 : 26 ; Acts10 : 2 2 ; Heb. 8 : 5 , 11:7 , 12:25. Hh. CHREIMATISMOS ypjsana which m eans a Divinestatement or answer Romans 11:4.i. ENDEIKNUMI evcucvujn whiq means to show or demonstrateRom. 2 : 1 5; 9 : 1 7, 2 2 ; Eph. 2:7;! Tim. 1:16.j . ENDEIXIS cvbcuct which meafls proofor perhaps demonstrationRomans 3 : 25 , 26.k. EMPHANIDZOO cpfpavdco 4ch means to reveal or make

PHAINOO, EPIPHAINOO, EPIPFJANEIA AND EMPIi$NTDZOO are all derived fromthe root stem pa from the Indo-european.3 1


36/216

known John 14 : 2 1 , 22.1 . PHOOS p @ c which means light.

1 JesusisthelightJohnl:4,5,7,8,93:l9,2o,2l;8:129:511 : 9 , 10; 12 : 35 , 3 6, 46; 1 John 1 : 5 , 7 ; 2:8,9, 10; Eph. 5:8.

2 God i s light James 1 :17 ; 1 John 1:5.3 Disciples are lights Matt. 5:14 , 16; Eph. 5:8.4 Salvation is light Luke. 2 : 3 2 ; Mat. 4 : 16 ; 1 Pet 2 : 9 ; Acts1 3 : 4 7, 2 6 :1 3 , 23.

m . PHOOSTEIR pcoripwhich means a light in other words a light-giving body or star Phil. 2:15.n. PHOOSPHOROS pcnpopoc wh ich mean s bearing or giving lightand also refers to the morning-star 2 Pet. 1:19.o. PHOOTIDZOO pcon4co wh ich means to enlighten or illuminateJohn 1:9;lCor.4:5; Eph. 1 :18 ; Eph. 3:19;2Tim. 1:10; Heb. 6:4, 10:32.p. PHOOTISMOS pwttai.toc which m eans illumination,enlightenment, light 2 Cor. 4 : 4 , 6.

II. Observations on the Biblical TerminologyA. Divine revelation has for i ts matter or content things known to God, bu t unknown tomen, e.g. secrets ormysteries Dan. 2 : 2 2 , 2 8, 2 9 , 47. No pantheistic ideas are present.B. Divine revelation includes the simple, verbal conmiunication of information. Noteespecially th e u se ofyvcoptw in Luke 2 : 15 and Eph . 3 : 3 -5 and uitoicaXuirrco Rom. 1:17, 16 :25.C. Divine revelation i s not me rely verbal comm unication, but involves the historicalactualization and manifestation of the realities which form its content. In support of this notecertain of the key biblical vocabulary: GALAH, APOKALUPTOO, AND PHANER000 andsome of the key biblical texts Isa. 56:1 ; Psa. 98 : 2 ; Jer. 3 3 : 6 . Several implications of th e aboveassertion mus t be here considered.

1 This underscores the inseparability in biblical thought of revelation and redemption. Notonly does revela tion attend redemption, redemption i s revelation Gal. 3 :2 3 ; Rom . 16 :25?; Rom.3 : 2 1 ; 1 Pet. 1 :2 0; 1 John 1 :2 ; 3 :5, 8. Jesus coming to deal wi th sin i s his appearing, m anifestation.The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1 3 : 57 3 , 58 2 f, 591.

32


37/216

Cf . Also Rom. 9 :2 2 ,2 3 ; Titus 2 :1 1; 3 :4 ? Not m erely the prooiamation of redemption, but itsactualization in the redemptive events is revelation.2 Th is leads to the idea that revelation consists in a word-ded complex. The Scriptures arenot merely a law-code, or a catechism of doctrines, bu t a recgrd of and interpretation of theredemptive acts ofGod. Revelation is both word and act.3 The concept of revelation as historical actualizat ion and manifes tat ion means that theredemptive revelation in Christ pre-existed in the d iv ine counsel, ip the prophetic Scriptures, and inthe pre-existent Logos ofGod. For its pre-existence in the d iv ine qounsel and prophetic Scripturessee Rom . 1 6: 2 5f; 1 Cor. 2 :6 -10 ; Col. 1:26, 2 7; 2 Tim. 1 : 10; T itu4 1 : 3 ; 1 Pet. 1 :20; Eph. 1 :9 , 3:5.These two ideas are not antithetical, bu t complementary--each implying the other. It i s notsurpris ing that the eternal purpose of God was hinted at in the prophetic Scriptures. This closeconnection explains and alleviates the difficulty in some cases of deciding whether the eternalcounsel orthe prophetic Scriptures are in view.The concept of revelation as historical actualization and manifestation is tied to the pre-existence ofthe Logos as the sum ofGods revelation to man. Note especially l John 1 :2 ; 1 Tim. 3 : 16 ; Cf John1 :14-18 ; Heb. 9 : 2 6 ; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 3:5,8.

D. Divine redemptive revelation is not restricted to the redemptive words or acts ofGod in Chris t s first or second advent . Divine revelation includesjthe saving revelation ofChrist toindividuals. The spectrum of revelation extends through the w o r 4 c ofChris t, the enlightenment ofthe Apostles fo r their special work, the world-wide preaching of the gospel [This preachingbecomes epochal in itself Rom. 16 :25 ; Titus 1 :3 ; Mat. 2 4 : 1 4 ; Juke 24:47.], the impartation ofspecial gifts to the church, and does not te rmina te short of thi. saving revelation of Christ toindividuals. Cf . John 1 2 : 38 ; Ph il. 3:15; Luke 2 : 3 2 ; 1:79 ; Eph. j :17; 1 Cor. 2 : 10 ; 2 Cor. 4 :2-6 .Revelation terminates on the s av ing revelation of Christ to menl This i s so, of course, becauserevelation i s the issue ofGods gracious purpose to save 2 Tim. 4 : 9 - 10 ; Eph. 1:9. This sa lvationis, of course, unto the fur ther end of the revelation of the glory bf God to all the universe Eph.3:10. This controll ing purpose of redemptive revelation dema4ds the functional availability ofrevelation till th e end of the age.

E. Gods definitive revelation in Christ results in !h e public manifestation of thethoughts, hear ts , actions , and characters ofmen. This resultant revelation ofmen i s consummatedat th e s econd advent 1 Cor. 3 : 1 3 ; 2 Cor. 5:10. It, however, $as begun a t Chris t s first adventLuke 2 : 35 , cf 2 :3 2 ; L uke 12:2 and continues in the ongoing wrk of the gospel 1 Cor. 1 1 : 1 9 ; 1John2:19;3:10;John3:21,cf.v. 19. Cf . iTim. 5 : 2 4 , 25.The fact that no distinction is made in the biblical termifllogy between what we call, onthe one hand, objective or direct revelation and what we call, on he other hand, subjectiveillumination both being described by the biblical terminology fq revelation is problematic withregard to the defense ofCessationism. Theological distinctions $ the Bible are, however, no talways made by the terminology used, bu t the concepts conveye4, Note the use ofthe biblicalword, call , to refer to both the general call of the gospel Mat. 2t14 and effectual calling 1Cor. 1 :9 , 24.

3 3


38/216

F. Divine revelation i s m ediated through and embodied in Jesus Christ. Cf . the use ofpw in John, and 2 Cor. 4:4-6. John, if a certain exegesis of John 1 :4 and 9 i s correct, teaches tha tthe Logos i s also th e s ou rc e of the light or revelation of creation. All revelation would, thus, fm dits mediator in th e S on ofGod.

3 4


39/216

SECTION 2 : ITS RELATIONSI. Its Relation to Revelation in GeneralThe use of the term, redemptive revelation, demands some explan4tion ofthe relation ofredemptiverevelation to revelation in general. As to the concept of rev4lation, all that w as said of theprincipial, intentional , and analogical character of revelation remains true of redemptive revelationin all its phases and fonns. The revelation contained in the ib1e, for instance, i s principial,intentional, and analogical. As to the categories of revelation, a somewhat longer explanation i snecessary. Redem ptive revelation i s the equivalent of covenant i4elation after the fall.

THE CATEGORIES OF REVELATION

Post-Fall reation Revelation

Covenant Revelation

The use of a spec ia l and distinguishing term for post-fall covenan! revelation i s vindicated by threeconsiderations. 1 The only f orm in which we authoritatively $ssess covenant revelation nowafter the fall i s in the form ofredemptive revelation. The only rec4d ofpre-fall covenant revelationi s in that redemptive revelation. 2 Creation revelation also is nounchanged by the fall. It i s nowthe revelation also of Gods wrath and common grace and as s4ch is the context of redemptiverevelation Rom. 1:18; 2 : 4 ; Acts 14:15-17. 3 Redemptive, revelation, though the post-fallcontinuation of covenant revelation, assumes a prominence an4 embodies elements not true ofcovenant revelation before the fall. There are fou r though ts which underscore this. First,redemptive revelation is now the in itia l, primary and regulati$e source of true and effectiveknowledge of God. Second, redemptive revelation re-publi$es the main lines of creationrevelation which pre-fall , covenant revelation would simply assu$e. Third, redemptive revelation,in distinction from pre-fall covenant revela tion, now reveals rede4ption and the way ofrestorationfo r fallen men. There is , of course, a certain parallel betwten pre- and pos t- fa ll covenantrevela tion. Both were intended as the means fo r the bringing ofn$n and the world to their destinedteXo and perfection. Fourth, redemptive revelation demands a flew form, inscripturation.2 Thegeneral abandonment ofman by God w ith the corollary of declased contact between man andGod, dea th , the s infulness of the human mind, and th e curse-all :PT0duct5 of the fall-demand thepreservation of redemptive revelation through inscripturation. Redemptive revelation as a title,thus, embodies the uniqueness ofpost-fall covenant revelation.

Vos, Biblical Theology, 292Vos, Biblical Theology, 30.

35

Pre-Fall Creation Revelation

Pre-Fall Covenant Revelation


40/216

II. Its Relation to RedemptionHaving entitled th is part of the course redemptive revelation, we have examined the relation ofredemptive revelation to revelation in general as expounded in Part I of the course. It i s nownecessary to discuss its relation to redemption. It is , of course, only in relation to the broader ideaof redemption that redemptive revelation can be properly understood. Many false ideas arise f roma misconception of this relation. A proper understanding of this relation will tend to establish theorthodox doctrine ofthe Word ofGod.

A. Its Relation to the Purpose ofRedemption1 . The Nature ofthis Relation

The redemptive revelation given in Christ f inds its origin in the mysteries of Gods eternal beingand counsel. Its truths pre-exist in the counsel ofGod Rom. l6 :25f; 1 Cor. 2 :7 -10 ; Col. l :26f.; 2Tim. 1 :9 , 10; Titus 1 :2 , 3 ; 1 Pet 1:20; Eph. 1:9; 3:5. There is a richness and variety in thereferences to Gods decretive w ill w hich amazingly confirms the assertion that redemptiverevelation originates in Gods eternal purpose. Cf. the use of einrayqv in Rom. 16 :26 ; irpowpacvin 1 Cor. 2 :7 ; i0cXiasv in Col. 1:27; mpoOsatv in 2 Tim. 1 :9 ; sityyciiXcito in Titus 1 :2 ;m p o c y v c o c Y p . z v o l in 1 Peter 1:20; suSoctav and irpoc0cro in Eph. 1 :9 . The Redeemer Himself, ofcourse, pre-exists in the being ofGod John 1:1-3.Redemptive revelation is , therefore, the express ion ofGods eternal and electing purpose and i s theinstrument of that purpose. The goal of Gods purpose and, hence, of redemptive revelationembraces or involves the actual saving enlightenment of the elect John 12 : 38 ; Phil. 3 : 15 ; Eph.1:17; Luke 2 : 3 2 , 1:79 ; 2 Cor. 4 : 2 -6 , and 1 Cor. 2:10.

2 . The Significance ofthis RelationThe relat ion of redemptive revelation to the d iv ine redemptive purpose sugges ts immedia te ly thefact of its preservation and provides several crucial perspectives on the preservation of redemptiverevelation. Since the preservation of redemptive revelation is achieved through its inscripturation,we may assert that inscripturated redemptive revelation-the Scriptures-must be viewed aga ins tthe backdrop ofredemptive purpose, if they are to be properly understood.

a . The Certainty ofits PreservationIt must n ev er be forgotten that the redemptive purpose from which redemptive revelation flows i ssovereign and irresistible purpose. From a Reform ed perspective the idea that God wou ld impar tredemptive revelation as the expression ofHis e te rnal purpose and then fail to preserve it i s simplyunthinkable. If it i s to become the instrument of that purpose, then it i s necessary that it should bepreserved. Since that purpose i s sovereign and irresistible, it will be preserved. If redemptiverevelation i s the expression and in str ument of divine purpose, it will certainly accomplish thatpurpose and, thus, certainly be preserved. Sovereign, redemptive purpose demands the preservationof redemptive revelation.

36


41/216

Often in popular discussion one meets with the opinion which coqedes that God may h ave spokenin the past, but th at somewhere in the transmission ofthat messa4e in its preservation its contenthas been garbled and is now hopelessly obscured. The questk$1 is asked, "How can we be sodogmatic now when such garbling has occurred?" Such opinio4 are hopelessly inconsistent. Inreality they are a den ial that redemptive revelation i s the expession of sovereign redemptivepurpose. Such a denial i s really a rejection of any divine revelatio whatever, since a god who i s sofickle or powerless as to give but f ail to preserve redemptive revel$t ion i s really no god at all.b. The Importance ofits Preservation

The opinion i s often present in discussions of the doctrine of Scripture , e ither explicitly orimplicitly, that ones view of the Scriptures is secondary. It is felthat if one acknowledges a divinerevelation by word and deed, one s view of the Bible i s of mu lesser im portance. Too m uchconcern about the inerrancy of a book will make one guilty-to *e Harnacks words-of chasingthe Spirit into a book. Our religion, it i s asserted, will become d4ctrinaire and bookish. One willhave descended from the pinnacles of divine revelation to gro1 in the dust of theological nit-picking.These feelings or opinions must no t fo r a moment be entert$ned. When the impartation ofredemptive revelation is v iewed again st the backdrop of di$e purpose, there may be nodepreciation of its preservation and inscripturation. The preservatin and, thus, the inscripturationof that redemptive revelation i s an equally c ru cial link in the hain of the d iv ine, redemptivepurpose. P recis ion in ou r understanding of the natu re of the pservation and inscripturation ofredemptive revelation is, then, seen to be crucial. Kuyper puts th i4 svell when he says:

But however strongly we emphasize that the real insp on of the Scripture mus t becarefully distinguished from the inspiration of the revelatjn as entirely dissimilar, yet th ismay never be taken as though the one action ofthe Spirit *ood in no organic relation to theother. Both, indeed, are expressions of the one will ofGc4 to grant to our race, lost in sin,a central revelation, and to bring th is central Revelation vithin the reach of all ages andpeople.

Berkhof also comments on the importance ofthe inscripturation o Z redemptive revelation.It was of the utmost importance for the special revelation fGod that it should be embodiedin writing, because it was given in the course ofmany cnturies and comprises deeds andevents that are not repeated, bu t belong to the past, so th$ the knowledge of them wouldsoon be lost in oblivion, if th ey we re not recorded and th* preserved fo r posterity. And itwas important that th is knowledge should no t be los t, si*e the divine revelation containse te rnal tr uth s, that a re pregnant with mean ing fo r all timts, fo r all peoples, and under allcircumstances. Therefore, God provided f or its inscriptuation, so th at H is revelation nowcomes to us, not in the form of deeds and events , bu t as a description of these. In order toguard it against volatilization, corruption, and falsificatioj, He gave it permanent form inKuyper, Principles ofSacred Theology, 363 .

37


42/216

writing. From this it follows that there i s a very c lose connec tion between special revelationand Scripture.1c . The Nature ofits Preservation

Not only do we gain crucial perspectives concerning the certainty and importance of thepreservation of redemptive revelation from its being the expression of Gods sovereign, redemptivepurpose, bu t there is also a crucial perspective given us regarding the preci se nature of itspreservation and inscripturation. Redemptive revelation was intended to be the instrument ofredemptive purpose. The purpose of its preservation and inscripturation was just "to bring thiscentral revelation within the reach of all ages and people," to use the words of Kuyper. Thequestion really at stake in the doctrine of Scripture and the discussions of inerrancy i s whether thepreservation and inscripturation of the original redem ptive revelation really makes available to usthat revelation in its native glory and authority; or , whether that revelation is dimmed and diluted inthe process of inscripturation.To this question the following rep ly must be given. It is not consistent with the character ofGod tothink that he would be so careless in the preservation of the Scriptures . It i s inconsistent with theentire purpose for which redemptive revelation was given to entertain the idea that it could bedimmed in the process of preservation. In the words of Kuyper, "This central ins t rument ofrevelation i s not placed in the midst of the world, in order that God may look on and see what m anwill do with it," bu t that Gods sovereign purposes may be achieved by it.It is no t only the perfections ofGod, bu t also the depravity ofman which demands this view of thepreservation and inscripturation of redemptive revela tion. Just because it is a redemptiverevelation, it i s addressed to men in their sinfulness, rebell ion, pride, and pervers ity . Theredemptive revelation, therefore, mus t necessarily address them in an absolutely authoritative form.In any other form fallen human reason becomes the arbiter ofwhat i s and what i s not redemptiverevelation. Man remains the final authority. Redemptive purpose i s frustrated at an essential point.The doctrine of inerrancy i s s imp ly th e logical consequent of the preservation of redemptiverevelation. It i s simply the assertion that we possess redemptive revelation in its undimmed gloryand nat ive authori ty.

B. Its Relation to the Activity ofRedemptionWe are accustomed to speak of redemption and revelation as two different entities with littlerealization of the in timate , inseparable , and multi-faceted connection between them. Someconception of this intimate connection and of the inseparable relat ion between them i s of greatimportance fo r a proper understanding of redemptive revelation. The following considerationshighiight this relation.

1 . Redemption Includes Revelation.Berkhof, Introduction to Systematic Theology, 141 .

38


43/216

a . Its DemonstrationRedemptive revelation is a part of the redemptive work of c$xl. Revelation i s one facet ofredemption. The category of redemption i s broader than rede#ptive revelation. For ins tance,while revelation i s solely for the purpose of altering mans *bjective condition, redem ptionincludes also the satisfaction ofdivine justice. Vos says:

Of course we should never forget that, wherever revelatioj and the redemptive acts ofGodcoincide, the lat ter frequently have an ulterior purpose ifrtending beyond the sphere ofr evela tion. The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ wez+: acts not exclusively intended toreveal something to man, but primari ly intended to serve me definite purpose in referenceto God. In so far as they satisfied the d iv ine justice it wuld be inaccurate to view themunder the aspect of revelation prim arily or exclusively.Redemption has both a Godward and manward reference while 4evelation i s exclusively directedtoward man.

b. Its ImplicationThe implication of the above i s that redemptive revelatio4 is no t a mere attendant oraccompaniment of redemption. It i s itself a redemptive ac t ofGoth Warfield comments :

Revelation thus appears , however, not as the mere reflectjn of the redeeming acts ofGodin the minds ofmen, but as a factor in the redeeming worl ofGod, a component part oftheseries of H is redeeming acts, without which that s erie s frould be incomplete and so farinoperative f or its maln end. Thus the Scriptures represtt it, no t confounding revelationwith the ser ie s of the redemptive acts ofGod, bu t placing it among the redemptive acts ofGod and giving it a function as a substantive element in the operations by which themercifu l God saves sinful men. It i s therefore no4 made even a mere constantaccompaniment of the redemptive acts of God, giving tl$ir explanation that th ey m ay beunderstood. It occupies a far more independent place among th em than this, and asfrequently precedes them to prepare their way as it accompthes or follows them to interprettheir meaning. It is , in one word, itself a redemptive ac t 4 f God and by no means the leastimportant in the ser ie s ofH is redemptive acts.2

It i s an interesting fac t tha t the means by which God determined b ring men into participation inthe accomplished redemption was by revealing that redemptive wrk to them. Also, th e mean s bywhich he determined to effec t the redemption and renewal ofmais internal condition was via th erevelation to man of the redemptive work of God. As an intellgent being the salvation of mannecessarily involved the impartation of such a knowledge ofGod. [Warf ield emphasizes this;

Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 9.2Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 12ff

3 9


44/216

One of the mos t g rievou s of the effects of sin i s the deformation of th e image of Godreflected in the human mind, and there can be no recovery from sin which does no t bringwith it the correction of this deformation and the reflection in the soul ofman ofthe wholeglory ofthe Lord God Almighty. Man i s an intelligent being; h is superiority over the brutei s found among other things, precisely in the direction of all his life by his intelligence; andhis blessedness i s rooted in the true knowledge of his God-- for this i s life eternal, that weshould know the only true God and Him whom He has sent. Dealing w ith m an as anintelligent being, God the Lord has s aved him by means of a revelation, by which he hasbeen brought into an ever more and more adequate knowledge of God, and been led evermore and more to do his part in working ou t his own salvation wi th fea r and trembling as heperceived w ith ever more and more clearness how God i s working it ou t for him throughmighty deeds ofgrace.Th e words of John Murray are c la ss ic and form a fitting conclusion to this f irs t considerat ion.Speaking of redemptive revelation, he says: "The revelation involved i s always redemptivelyconditioned, redemptively revelatory, and revelationally redemptive."2

2 . Redemption i s Revelation.The redemptive acts ofGod are in the Scriptures often identified as revela tion. Vos remarks :

The process of revelation is no t only concomitant with his tory, but it becomes incarnate inh is tory . T he facts of history themselves acquire a revealing significance. The crucif ixionand resurrection ofChrist are examples ofthis. We mus t place act-revelation by the side ofword- revela tion. This applies, of course, to the great outstanding acts of redemption. Insuch cases redemption and revelation coincide.3Redemption, then, not only includes revelation, redemption i s revelation. As Vos s ays in anotherplace:

We now m ust add th at in not a few cases revelation is ident/Ied with history. Besidesmalth ig u se of words, God has also employed acts to reveal great principles of truth. It i snot so much the prophetic visions or miracles in the narrower sense that we think of in th isconnection. We refer more specially to those great , supernatural, history-making acts ofwhich we have examples in the redemption of the covenant-people from Egypt, or in thecrucifixion and resuirection of Christ. In these cases the history itself forms a part ofrevelation. There is a self-disclosure ofGod in such acts. They would speak even if left tospeak for themselves.4Warfield, Revelation and Inspiration, 1 3 .2John Murray, Collected Writings, Edinburgh: Banner ofTruth, 1976, 1 : 2 4 .3Vos, Biblical Theology, 1 5 .4Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation Philipsburg, NJ:

4 0


45/216


46/216

words would be empty, without H is words the acts would be blind.b. Demonstrated

The point being made i s patent in the Scrip tures, bu t note especially the use of yvcopgco in Rom.16 :26; John 1 5: 1 5, 1 7: 2 6. Cf. a ls o J ohn 17 :14 ; Titus 1 :3 ; Eph. 1 : 1 7ff. In the Old Tes tament noteespecially Amos 3 :7 . Very instructive i s the record of the redemptive ac t of God in s av ing theIsraelites in the Red Sea cro ss ing . Note the explanatory word accompanying it both before andafterthe event, Cf . Exod. 14 :13 -18 and Exod. 15 :1-21 . Warfield argues:

According to the biblical representations, the fundamental element in revelation i s not theobjective process of redemptive acts, but the revealing operations of the Spirit of God,which run through the whole series of modes of comm unication prope r to Spirit,culminating in communications by the objective word. The characteristic element in theBible idea of revelation in its highest sense i s that the organs of revelation are not creativelyconcerned in the revela tions made through them , but occupy a receptive attitude. Thecontents of their messages are not something thought out, inferred, hoped, or feared byth em , but something conveyed to them, often forced upon them by the i rresis t ible might ofthe revealing Spirit. No conception can do justice to the Bible idea of revelation

ST 502 Mansucript

Documents

Transcript of ST 502 Mansucript