General Revelation vs. Special Revelation

Tom,

What is lacking in that logic is that not ALL the wise and prudent had the truth hidden from them. IOW, this is a "general" statement -- not a "special" revelation. :thumbs: Some wise DO see. Some "simple" do NOT see, right?

skypair

 

?????????????????????????????????

What's your point? I said unbelievers weren't saved, didn't I? I said Rom 1-2 didn't tell us about the BELIEF option.

skypair

 

I don't object to non-standard definitions, I only ask that you prove them from Scripture, and so far you haven't done that. We have clear Scripture about nature (Ps. 19, Rom. 1) and conscience (Rom. 2). Where is your Scripture proving family, human authority, etc., to be forms of general revelation?

Again, do you have Scripture for this?

No, systematic theology is not the Reform/Calvinist view. It is simply a theological method which uses philosophy, apologetics, etc. In particular, Thiessen was not a Calvinist. He was a long time professor at Wheaton College, never a Calvinist institution.

Try this from a more neutral source. "General revelation is found outside the Bible, and apart from Jesus Christ in the flesh, (1) in nature and (2) in the convicting work of the Holy Spirit" (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. by Merrill Tenney, p. 720). On the next page it also says, "Nature does not give propositional truth. It gives data from which inferences are reasonably drawn." But there is no data in nature that suggests a Savior or even the need for one.

Even if I were to allow your viewpoint, parents without Christ have no concept of a Savior, even if they have a concept of justice derived from their own conscience--which is defiled, by the way. "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." (Tit. 1:15).

I haven't agreed that OT salvation was from non-special revelation. I believe it was through the special revelation of the prophecies of Christ, beginning with the "first Gospel" of Gen. 3:15, continuing with the unrecorded prophecies of Enoch (Jude v. 14), the Abrahamic covenant, etc. :type:

I have actually thought about it many, many times. For this very reason, I truly wish I could accept your view, but I just don't find it in Scripture. :tear:

 

...

Initially, it is -- as I said -- derived from Rev 5:6, the 7 horns and 7 eyes. And don't get me wrong -- it's NOT that families, gov't, etc. TEACH the truth. It is that their existence demonstrates the hidden truth of Authority and wisdom and a plan just as nature does. What do you believe are the 7 eyes and 7 spirits of the Lamb gone out into all the earth?

And if, for the purposes of proof, you are including nature/creation and conscience as "general revelation," by what standard do you dismiss that each dispensation is a new revelation of God? Isn't that the foundation of dispensationalism? Wasn't each defined by some NEW revelation? What do you call those "revelations" -- general or specific? Even the "law" which may appear special turns out to have been "kept" by the Gentiles who had it not, correct? That being the case, wouldn't it also be considered "general?" If they only point to the special, can we say they are special revelations themselves? or are the essentially general revelations in nature?

This one you KNOW. WE are sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit. They weren't.

The name "systematic theology" was coined by Reformers who realized that their original title might be offensive to some. The original title was "Reform Dogma." Of course, "Reform" itself might be an issue but that it was "dogma" was worse. It means "to be accepted without proof."

The term "Systematic Theology" has gone on to be used by others, it is true. But there is a sense in which I believe some original ideas were "transplanted" with the "really cool" idea that we could systematize theology. :tear:

Just to restate this -- then you are saying that God's "hand is shortened" by the necessity of direct revelation from God or a believer. Is that true? That all religions that emerged from Babel, say, didn't have one iota of revelation regarding God and salvation? That an infant who dies cannot be in heaven because there is not ANY revelation that could save him/her?

 

The Bible does not say what the 7 horns and 7 eyes are. Therefore I do not. Why do you speculate about them? The Bible also does not say what the 7 spirits went out to do, as I pointed out earlier. So why do you speculate when the Bible does not say? I am willing to let God have some secrets, myself. :smilewinkgrin:

It wasn't me who said that nature/creation and conscience are (general) revelation. It was very clearly the Scriptures that I pointed out to you.

That may be true, I don't know. I'd be interested in your historical source for that. All I know is I gave you a solid non-Calvinist theologian's quote. Please don't try to negate it by side issues.

Sigh. And now you are trying to put words into my mouth.

I have never said that "God's hand is shortened." What I have said is that God has determined to save souls through Christ, not through general revelation. There is a huge difference between that and saying that God has decided something and that God is not omnipotent.

Again, please don't put words into my mouth about the death of infants. I have said several times on this thread that I believe like you do about this, but do not think it is relevant to our discussion.

And now I really must quit. It is late over here in Japan, and I really hadn't planned to post on the BB. Oyasumi nasai. ("Rest well.") :sleeping_2:

 

Tom said:

Then he thanks the Father that the Father had hidden the truth from some people, and revealed it to others. And that the Father did it because it was a good thing to do.

Tom again:
Agreed. The point is that those to whom the Father revealed the truth received a revelation not given to all others. Not only was it not given, it was hidden.

I find it interesting that Jesus as just upbraided Chorazin and Bethsaida, who had witnessed his mighty works and still refused to repent. Jesus had revealed his powr to the people there in a spectacular way. It wasn't enough. I'd characterize it as a general revelation.

 

Since you've restated this (the part about the infants) for about the third time, I'm going to give a more detailed answer.

Here is a comparison chart. Please look at this and interact with it. Convince me that adults above the age of accountability though without a knowledge of Christ are in the same condition as babies below the age of accountability.


Children (under accountability)--------------Adults (without Christ)

(1) Don't know that they sin----------------------------(1) Sin willfully
(2) Can't worship God-----------------------------------(2) Wickedly worship idols
(3) Can't understand nature-----------------------------(3) Can see God in nature
(4) Can't seek God--------------------------------------(4) Can decide to seek God
(5) Can't follow their conscience-------------------------(5) Can learn of God through conscience
(6) Can't reject God-------------------------------------(6) Can willfully reject what they know of God
(7) Don't know what an excuse is------------------------(7) Are without excuse before God

:type:

 

John,

Thanks for your patient responses. :applause: I am still learning.

I notice that SCRIPTURE does not call creation or conscience "general revelation." Does it? Or is this a designation you ascribe to it? See, my thinking all along has been that maybe this whole designation system of "general" vs. "special" revelation is manmade and artificial. Can you demonstrate to me that it is not? What constituted a "justifying" (since that's all they received in the OT - no indwelling Spirit) gospel in the OT?

You ask: Why do I believe that the 7 eyes and 7 horns have something to do with saving revelation? First, I know that they did not have the gospel of Jesus Christ, the one we call "special revelation," in the OT.

Second, because I find in Acts 19:1-8 that some OT believers were "saved again" when they heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you find that? Obviously, the transition period OT to NT was the only time such a thing could happen but what do you find there -- 2 "special revelations" (John the Baptist and then Paul) or one "special revelation" operating in 2 ways??

Thirdly, because in reading Renald Showers (Dispensationalist), I find that the extent of God's revelation in each new dispensation was not the "special revelation" that we have but is suggestive of simply more "general" revelation.

As to infants, I agree with the left column. Those in the right column, however, are "given" innocence through faith in God (as are we) but are NOT sanctified -- neither are infants -- by the indwelling Holy Spirit. Being thus JUSTIFIED by what we appear to be calling "general revelation," they are resurrected postrib (not raptured pretrib) and receive SANCTIFICATION (which we receive in our flesh as we live on account of "special revelation") in the MK. Another way to say it would be this -- they receive "special revelation," Jesus Christ, in the MK.

skypair

 

I'm not getting into the debate between you and JohnOfJapan, except to ask you how you concluded that the Ephesus disciples were saved twice? Luke described them as disciples and Paul accepted them as believers. The only thing they lacked was proper baptism. They had been baptized into John's baptism, but not in the name of the Lord Jesus. Paul fixed that, laid hands on them and the Holy Spirit poured out on them.

There is no mention of their being saved again. There are a lot of folks around today who are confessing believers who've never been properly baptized.

In this case, their baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus actually confirms that they were already believers. Unless you're saying that the new baptism saved them. And I don't believe you are.

 

General/Special Revelation...

Here's an easy answer....Grace+Faith+nothing=Salvation.

 

Welcome to the BB, USBaptist! :wavey:

 

Hi Tom, John, USBaptist,

Let's just see. What gospel did John the Baptist preach? If we look back to Mt, 3:2 we see he preached the "gospel of the kingdom at hand." In fact, if you begin to study it, you'll see the Jesus, His disciples, even the 70 that Jesus sent out preached this "gospel of the kingdom." But this is BEFORE the cross, right? This was while Jesus was still offering His kingdom to the Jews -- to establish His kingdom WITHOUT the "postponement" between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel -- without making the Gentiles the "church of the firstborn," Heb 12:22.

Yeah, you could say they hadn't been "properly baptized." John's baptism was "because of the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4). But notice what Peter says in Acts 2:38 -- "Be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Anything different in those 2 gospels? John said you are baptized by water because you are forgiven (JUSTIFIED) -- Peter says you are baptized by the Holy Ghost unto for JUSTIFICATION (remission) and SANCTIFICATION (receive the indwelling Holy Ghost).

Were John's disciples "saved" before they met Paul? SURE! Were they saved after they believed on Christ? Absolutely! But now they were sanctified too! Now they would be raptured to heaven at Jesus PRETRIB coming for the church (they had the "oil" Mt 25:1-13) and not resurrected to earth at His POSTRIB 2nd coming for Israel (Rev 20:4, Mt 24:31, Job 19:15-18, etal.).

There must needs be 2 gospels of salvation. Symbolically speaking, Jesus "must needs" go through Samaria (the Gentiles) on the way to His own Cana-like wedding! In fact, look at the woman at the well. Any reason she has 5 husbands? Sounds to me much like 5 churches in Rev 2-3. Remember, Jesus is among the Samaritans/Gentiles at this point. Five she married (5, by virtue of marriage, would be raptured - excluding Thyatira) and the one she was "living with" is like Laodicea -- not really married to her and, in the imagery, would be "left behind."

And like USBaptist says -- "Grace+Faith+nothing=Salvation." "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved..." Not "believe and be baptized and..." The mention of baptism was Paul telling John's disciples that they would be baptized with the Holy Spirit when they name the name of Jesus -- just like Peter's preaching.

skypair

 

There is no term "general revelation" in Scripture, of course. There is the term "nature," and I'd be happy to use that term if you are more comfortable with it. It matters not to me--what matters is the concept, which is definitely in Scripture.

There is a very clear difference between general and special revelation in Scripture. General revealation is non-verbal. "The heavens declare...," and of course that declaration is not in words. On the other hand, Paul refers to his Gospel as revelation (Gr. apokolupsis) in Gal. 1:12, etc., and the Gospel is definitely communicated with words.

I am really puzzled by this. I went back and looked at Rev. 5:6. Your three reasons here have nothing to do with the passage. There is nothing in the context of the passage saying what you say about it. What are you trying to say? I believe in literal, grammatical-historical interpretation. What kind of interpretation are you using? You do believe in interpreting a passage within context, don't you?

So once again I'll ask. Since the left and right columns of my chart comparing children below accountability with adults are so completely different, how can it be that you want to use God's mercy on babies to prove God's mercies on adults without Christ? The two are completely different subjects.

I only mean this kindly, hoping for more direct interaction, but you are wandering through theology and avoiding some of my points, I'm afraid. You persist in going over the same ground with me, asking the same things again without discussing my points.

You have several times compared OT saints with people without knowledge of Christ in the age of Grace. I have said I don't believe that is parallel, but you never ask why--you don't interact with me. So I think I'll try another chart. Maybe that will get your attention.

OT Saints--------------------------People without knowledge of Christ
(1) Christ not born yet-------------------(1) Much knowledge of Christ in the world if they seek
(2) Could convert to Judaism-------------(2) Could learn of Christianity
(3) Without excuse----------------------(3) Without excuse
(4) Must abandon idols to be saved-------(4) Must abandon false religion to be saved

You see, this #4 seems to be where we differ most, and maybe where we'll have to part company. You seem to believe that a false religion can give a proper knowledge of God. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I have talked personally with and witnessed to people from: Buddhism, Shinto, Islam, Judaism, the Watchtower Society and others. Never have I met a single person who drew close to the true God through his religion.

Interact with this. Give a Scripture--even just one--that says people can be saved through any religion. I'll be waiting (but not with bated breath). :type:

 

OK, you are defining it NOW as nature and non-verbal revelation -- "things seen," as Paul calls them in Rom 1, right? There's a couple of problems there, to me. 1) "Revelation" means "seen," for one, doesn't it? Such that even what is heard must be "seen." Hmm. 2) Dispensations then -- are they heard or seen? special or general? (I think I offer a better way to distinguish "general" from "special revelation" below.)

That's pretty clear. Was the gospel of John the Baptist spoken? I assume it to be "special" then, right? Have you studied Acts 19? Why did his "special" revelation result in a different, non-indwelt salvation (a question of mine that YOU have neglected to answer)??

In fact, it comes to mind that all the OT was spoken until Moses began writing it down. I think maybe this "spoken" thing has the discussion off track. We both agree that conscience is "general" revelation but it is NOT spoken, is it.

"and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." "Puzzle me" what it says to you, Batman. :smilewinkgrin: I'm game. What are the 7 spirits sent forth into all the earth? Even the context isn't a huge clue, is it. I step out on the notion that not only this passage but the seals reflect a view of the 7 dispensations. The case of the seals is easier made as they are pretty clearly revived dispensational "tests" which I will explain if you want to get off topic.

Only to the extent that it shows another "program" for salvation. There is NOTHING as detailed as the list you give. Understanding how those on the right are justified is understanding how we are justified. But infants is another thing. IF infants go to heaven, it is NOT under the same "program"/same requirements that you and I go under, right?

Wandering? I don't think so. I believe I am supplying you with MY rationale and trying honestly to ask your questions. Am I maybe confusing you with others here who don't think there is but one gospel? one salvation? or is that what you also believe despite Acts 19??

OK, that's from Rom 1, right?

You're wrong there. I said that all religion transmits the notion that 1) there IS a God AUTHORITY (the 3rd dispensation) and 2) that we are imperfect and 3) that somehow there is a set of laws to be observed, many paralleling the 10 commandments. Do you find that to be true? Yes, from this the individual is expected to discover the unseen "Godhead" -- True God that is NOT in that religion. That is when the Holy Spirit comes in and shows them True God. Let THAT be the SPECIAL revelation as it indeed IS, and everything else GENERAL, OK? Perhaps we should agree that special revelatin IS the Holy Spirit speaking to man and not limit it to the situation where man speaks to man, right? In fact, that pretty much makes the missionary one who has the most HS to offer and yet keeps the work of salvation in God's hands where it belongs, right? And it is God that gives the SPECIAL revelation unto salvation always.

Right indeed! They draw close to self whilest trying to discover self , not God. Yet the unseen is in the seen -- an divine outline of what they ought believe which we are calling "general revelation." And in the soul/conscience IS God awareness. Do you believe that? And the "wind [Holy Spirit] listeth where it will" in bringing them to salvation.

Did Jesus not tell the Jews to do as the Pharisees told them? and then turn around and say to the Pharisees that some of their "wards" would sit down in the kingdom of God but they themselves would be "cast out?" Is that an example of what you are looking for?

Well, I hope you won't accuse me of not replying again. I copied everything and believe I have addressed it all as well. Look forward to your reply.

skypair

 

Good post! Thank you for listening and replying. :thumbsup:

It seems that right from the start we have been "pushing a string" as you poetically put it, concerning definitions of revelation. I just assumed that you would define special revelation as verbal and understand that natural revelation was non-verbal, since this is a fairly standard view in the theologies. Sorry about that!

You strike me as self-educated in theology--a good thing, but that means that sometimes your views are non-standard. I know what that is like, since when I go back to the States I am sometimes ambushed by issues and views I've never heard of.

Let me address your two points here. (1) No, revelation does not mean "seen." Here is the definition in Thayer's Greek lexicon: "1) laying bear, making naked 2) a disclosure of truth, instruction 2a) concerning things before unknown 2b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all 3) manifestation, appearance"

(2) Concerning dispensations, I don't consider them to be revelation at all except as we learn of them through the Bible. In other words, God doesn't necessarily tell humankind that they are being tested at the beginning of each dispensation.

My statement was that special revelation is verbal, not that it is spoken per se. As for John's Gospel, what was revelation of it is that which is recorded in the NT. John's special revelation resulted in a non-indwelt salvation because it was still from the previous dispensation. I didn't answer this before since I didn't and don't see any connection to the OP.

The standard explanation in the commentaries is that this is just a poetic way of speaking of the Holy Spirit. That makes sense to me, but I see no need to interpret it, really, since the context does not. As a mentor of mine once said, "I'm willing to let God have some secrets."

Now you are making sense. I finally see why you keep coming back to the OT saints and the infants. However, it is one thing to postulate the existence of another mode of salvation, but it is another thing to prove it, and I feel you haven't, especially since there is no Scripture on your side. I can postulate the existence of a purple space ship with Elvis in it since the space shuttle exists and there are people with doubts about Elvis's death. But the speculation is entirely improvable. :smilewinkgrin:

The reason I said that was because of your frequent forays into dispensationalism, etc., things that I feel have nothing to do with the OP.

I agree with your (2) and (3) here, but certainly not with your (1). The typical religionist views God not as authority but as convenience. The typical idolator only goes to his "god" in time of need. I could write a book on that, since I deal with idolatry on almost a daily basis. You are not factoring in the tendency of humans to degrade religion.

Concerning revelation being the Holy Spirit speaking to man, no I don't agree with that. I believe special revelation has ceased for the nonce, and that is the standard dispensational position, is it not? For more on my views about the nature of revelation and whether it exists today, see a previous thread started by me: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=34389

I believe that the oft-mentioned "God-shaped hole" in the heart of man exists. However, it can only teach the existence of some god, not explicitly the loving and holy God of special revelation. I see absolutely no Scripture anywhere that elevates the God taught by conscience to a Savior.

Nope, not what I'm looking for. The Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God, and it was through that special revelation that they learned how to be saved, not through their religion, which by the time of Christ had grown to emphasize not God's Word, but the tithing of mint and anise.

Good job.:thumbsup:

 

Hey John :godisgood:

I guess first off we need to answer whether man, God, or Jesus give any special revelation to men OR is that the unique ability of the Holy Spirit Who turns general revelation (anything seen or heard) into special revelation unto salvation?

I find the Calvinists make a point that we sometimes overlook -- that believing what we will from "general" revelation, it is the Spirit Who gives FAITH through His "special" revelation. In other words, it is obvious to me that all come by faith on account of the work of the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit IS in your preaching, no doubt about it. But if man can see the "invisible Godhead" in creation, what keeps the Holy Spirit from taking that general revelation and using it to give faith unto salvation?

I see our previous distinction between general and special revelation as unspoken and spoken as being strained -- especially because it is the work of the Holy Spirit that converts, right? Wouldn't special revelation ALWAYS save? Like the Calvinists "irresistible grace" vs. "common grace which they beleive does not?

Q: Is your general revelation derived from "common grace" and your "special revelation" derived from "special grace" or what ever they call it? See, I'm thinking that the Calvinists got a lot that looks tempting but is wrong.

So we agree there are 2 types of salvation at least -- OT and NT. And that "special revelation" leads to both. Now both John and Paul preached the word but different words. So why is their message not general and the Holy Spirit's message not the "special revelation?"

OK. That's cool. But are you willing to let God reveal what He wants to reveal, too? You're not so old that you go by the rationale "Not invented here," are you?

And yes, I am pretty much "self-taught" -- me and the Spirit, that is -- these past 10 years of my 44 years of spiritual life. It just occurs to me that if man is without excuse for not knowing God (Rom 1), that the Calvinists can't be correct in saying the OT saints were saved by the gospel of a Christ who hadn't even come and Whom they didn't recognize when He did come.

Well, we have postulated ourselves into agreeing that the OT saints were under another program that did not reveal Jesus, right? As I recall (correct me if I am wrong), that knowing salvation in Jesus was the only "special revelation" you would acknowledge. That "other means" was Acts 19, right? I guess I can only think of 2 modes and the infant exception (which really isn't as they will have to choose following the resurrection). But if you are going to say that "special revelation" is the Holy Spirit, there is only one mode always!

OK. 2 out of 3. Some revelation anyway. About as much as some Christians have. My FiL sounded like your pagans -- when God didn't answer his prayer (convenience), he blew God off. Yet it's funny how he knew he must ask a God.

I believe that too. He's actually in our soul. He got there through general revelation. "God clues" filled holes of "God awareness" in our conscience as we "picked up on" His 7 horns -- His authority through nature and fellow mankind. I think the point you are looking for as special revelation is "CONVICTION" -- the point where the Spirit convicts us of being totally unworthy of God and yet He is the ONLY place we can go for salvation.

Maybe you need to explain your definition of "special revelation" more precisely so I can understand it. We, I think, are developing a new model for these terms and maybe we should not be too systematic and more biblical in our understanding.

skypair

 

My position on revelation has absolutely nothing to do with Calvinism. It is the position worked out in the 19th century by conservative scholars in opposition to German higher criticism, and then by Fundamentalists in opposition to liberals in the "mainline" denominations in the period from 1910 to 1930 or so. Just to give you an idea, here is a quote from the article "The Knowlege of God" (by David James Burrell) in the original series of "Fundamentals" pamphlets, 1910 to 1915: "Here is a book which claims to be his Revelation. Of all the books in the literature of the ages, it is the only one that claims to have been divinely authorized and 'written by holy men as they were moved by the Spirit of God'" (The Fundamentals, Kregel reprint, p. 596).

If you really want to understand this historical, conservative position (forgive me, but you don't seem to yet), I suggest you get ahold of Revelation and Inspiration, the classic work by James Orr. Or if you can't get ahold of that, read the article in the original International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1915. Here is a quote from that: "The religion of the Bible, thus announces itself, not as the product of men's search after God, if haply they may feel after Him and find Him, but as the creation in men of the gracious God, forming a people for Himself, that they may show forth His praise. In other words, the religion of the Bible presents itself as distinctively a revealed religion. Or rather, to speak more exactly, it announces itself as the revealed religion, as the only revealed religion; and sets itself as such over against all other religions, which are represented as all products, in a sense in which it is not, of the art and device of man."

Huh?? Are you saying that John and Paul did not write as moved by the Holy Spirit?

For the sake of argument I'll say that yes, there is OT salvation and NT salvation. What of it? For the nth time, we are in the age of Grace, the NT age, not OT times. Your argument for a different salvation in the OT is irrelevant.

Nope. I just haven't found it yet in what you have written. You will not move me until you come up with Scripture that says there is salvation without hearing about Christ.

No, I'm afraid you are not yet understanding my position on special revelation. Special revelation is the verbal communication of universal truth from God to humankind. It exists in written form in the Word of God, the Bible. This is, I believe, how the Apostle Paul used the term.

So what is the Holy Spirit's part in this? In the first place, He moved holy men of old to write the Scriptures (2 Peter 1:20-21), which are thus "God-breathed" (Greek theopneustos in 2 Tim. 3:16). Revelation ceased for this dispensation with the book of Revelation, meaning that Charismatics (and anyone else) who claim to have a direct message from God are lying and/or deceived.

The special revelation of the Bible is necessary for salvation (Rom. 10:17). So what does the Holy Spirit do with this special revelation, already completed? He convicts of sin, righteousness and judgment, and He illumines the hearts of believers and unbelievers to understand its truth. He may bring a lost person who knows not Christ to seek truth, but there is not a shred of Biblical evidence that the Holy Spirit will save anyone apart from a direct knowledge of Christ.

Hopefully my above explanation will enlighten you here.:type:

 

Thanks, JoJ!

:laugh: :laugh: Yes, I meant Romans! I was thinking about general "revelation" and special "revelation" so forcefully that I typed Rev for Revelation instead of Romans! :wavey: