This post is entitled
How Special Revelation Is the Completion of General Revelation, and Why We Should Care
. It is the argument in support of premise (2) from below, as rephrased:
All God's truth is determined from the Bible and some of God's truth is also discernible through general revelation. I will describe the argument in my own words, continue with my evidence from outside authorities, and wrap up with a summary of why this matters to the PHC conflict. This is lengthy.
First is my own argument, beginning with an illustration. Painters of the early Middle Ages used egg tempera paint, which is very thin, so they needed to apply it in several quick-drying layers. When they painted people, they used green for the skin tones in the first layer, in order to counter the pink they would apply in successive layers. In this first coat, therefore, they already had at least the outline of the entire picture, but it was distorted. General revelation is our first layer of understanding of the world. Special revelation is the completed picture. The latter provides a clear framework for all understanding, since it contains layers of faith as well as rationality. Underlying special revelation is general revelation, the work of reason, which can only bring humanity partway. Special revelation would not be the same without general revelation, which is why the Master Painter gave us both. General revelation alone, however, gives nothing that special revelation does not provide.
On my long walk yesterday, I tried to locate a counterexample that would break this analogy. I found only proof. Reason alone can reach only to general principles. Take arguments for the existence of God – the “Prime Mover” or “First Cause” argument, for example. This goes something as follows: “All things in the material universe have a cause outside themselves. The material universe as a whole is in the material universe. The material universe as a whole must have a Cause outside itself,” which by definition would be God. Simple and easy… but it doesn’t tell us anything about this God. One cannot derive from this that He is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-good, that He is made up of three Persons in one, or that He is a He instead of a She or an It! Another example is my reply in the comments section of the previous post to Randy’s statement that everyone knows murder is wrong. Yes, but definitions of “murder” vary wildly.
I wrote my original premise very carefully, though I undercut myself with the sloppy final conclusion in italics. I didn’t want to say that all God’s truth is “in” the Bible. I wanted to say that the Bible is the authority that determines truth. Therefore, all truth is “determined from” the Bible, via informed reason operating in governance to faith.
Obj. 1 (David): “Political philosophy is not in the Bible. The Bible does not address the question of the best regime.”
Reply to Obj. 1: The one basic truth of political philosophy is that different regimes work better in different situations. We know this is true simply because the Bible “does not address the question.” If it said clearly, “The best regime is x, y, or z,” would we not be obligated as Christians to implement x, y, or z? As it is, if someone asserts that all people everywhere must implement regime x, he is wrong. Some will benefit more from y or z. To prove Obj. 1, a person must be able to show that political philosophy demonstrates truths that are outside of the Bible. He cannot, because we determine if something is true by seeing if it agrees with the Bible.
Obj. 2 (David and Randy): “Plato discovers truth (‘God's truth’) that we didn't already know or ‘have.’ God knew it; we didn't.”
Reply to Obj. 2: When Plato wrote
The Republic, special revelation was not yet complete. He accomplished incredible things with general revelation. As a sidenote, from what I’ve studied of the truly ancient Greek philosophers before Plato, it seems quite likely that the strand of Greek thought stretches all the way back to teachings from Noah and his family. But now, even though I learned many things from Plato, I found nothing true that did not merely expand my knowledge of my faith. I will never forget the Cave or the Line analogies. I will always remember forms, the tripartite division of the soul, and the different types of governmental systems with their good and bad counterparts. Nevertheless, none of these things communicate a truth that the Bible does not address.
My authorities for these arguments rise from many sources, most of which I was taught by the professors themselves. For today, I will stick with Aquinas and the Bible.
First, a brief Aquinas refresher. He discusses four types of law: eternal, natural, human, and divine. Eternal law is God’s complete plan for all creation, which is known fully only to Him. Natural law is the window God has opened for all mankind into His eternal law – the things that everyone ought to be able to know. Human law is a subset of natural law – those rules derived from natural law for the purpose of particular situations, binding only insofar as they do not disagree with the starting propositions of natural law. Divine law, lastly, is the complete authority of natural law through the Scriptures.
Evidence that supports this post lies all through Aquinas’s explanation of law. I will reproduce two quotations here in particular:
(In answer to “Did Human Beings Need a Divine Law?”) “Second, because of the uncertainty of human judgment, especially regarding contingent and particular matters, different persons may judge differently about various human actions, and so even different and contrary laws result. Therefore, in order that human beings can know beyond any doubt what they should do or should not do, a divinely revealed law, regarding which error is impossible, was needed to direct human beings in their actions” (ST I-II, Q. 91, A. 4).
Because our reason, the source of general revelation, is fallen, God gave us the Bible to settle matters beyond a doubt.(In answer to “Is the Natural Law the Same for All Human Beings?”) “Obj. 1. The
Decretum says that ‘the natural law is contained in the [Old] Law and the Gospel.’ But what is contained in the Law and the Gospel is not in the common possession of all, since Rom. 10:16 says: ‘Some do not heed the Gospel.’ Therefore, the natural law is not the same for all human beings. . . .
Reply Obj. 1. We should not understand the cited statement to mean that all the matters included in the Law and the Gospel belong to the natural law, since the Law and the Gospel transmit to us many things above nature. Rather, we should understand the statement to mean that the Law and the Gospel completely transmit to us the things that belong to the natural law” (ST I-II, Q. 94, A. 4).
I think this says it all.I found it interesting when I was rereading Aquinas this afternoon that he also constantly cited Romans 1-3, the Bible chapters that are my other authority. Pertinent verses here follow:
“So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. . . . Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen” (Rom. 1.15-25, KJV).
“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. . . . Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness. An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law” (Rom. 2.14-20, KJV).
I can’t resist pointing out Plato’s Cave analogy here.“What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Rom. 3.9-11, KJV).
These verses reveal two key truths: (1) All people know the law enough by general revelation so that they are condemned for not following it; they are “without excuse”; (2) Those who possess the Scriptures, special revelation, have “the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.”
Last of all, the conflict between this point of view and Drs. C.’s and N.’s is readily evident in this quotation from their article in The Source: “There are many ways to explain this distinction between what we know from the Scriptures in a certain and salvific sense, and what we know from our study of the world around us. Perhaps the most common set of descriptive terms is general and special revelation. The term special here is not used in the sense of higher or exalted, but in the sense of a distinction between genus and species. The subset of knowledge that we know from the scriptures is specific, thus special. It is knowledge unto salvation.”
I would answer that this distinction is reversed. In all our lives, everything we do, we are “working out our salvation with fear and trembling.” Although we are already perfect in God’s sight because of justification, sanctification is the ongoing process of salvation in this temporal world. If this were not true, we would only need the first chapters of Genesis and the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. In actuality, we have the example of the Israelites in the Old Testament, and we have the apostles’ application of the gospels to daily life.
I’m sorry this is so long, but I think it is all necessary. It greatly influences the way we Christians approach everything we do. In the statement “all truth is God’s truth,” do we begin with our perception of truth and try to make God agree with it (like Mormons), or do we begin with what God says and shape our perception of truth to that? I would argue the latter.
