Hugh Ross. His “Good News” brings Bad Fruit: A Closer Look at Dual Revelation

[asterisktom]

It is tragic if any of his converts if they have seen God in the stars but have never been to the Cross. The Cross is what humbles us because it is the foolishness of the message that kills us. The Cross shows the extremes that God endured to rescue us from sin. “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” You either go through the door (the Cross) or you are still in your sins.

Hugh Ross. His “Good News” brings Bad Fruit: A Closer Look at Dual Revelation

Although this article addresses the teaching of Hugh Ross much of the argument here applies to other teachers with similar beliefs. Tim Martin and JL Vaughn (“Beyond Creation Science”) display the …

asterisktom.wordpress.com

 

[Van]

Let me chime in, commenting on just one facet of the linked article.

The premise seems to be if we use our current understanding of reality to interpret scripture, then we are not relying on "scripture alone." This is a false premise. Our understanding of reality is not an additional book of the bible, it is a lens through which we understand scripture. The fly in the buttermilk is when we rewrite scripture to fit our view of reality.

Here is an example, science, or at least a part of it, think humans were created or evolved from less gifted primates, about 50,000 to 200,000 years ago. They date cave drawings to 30,000 or more years ago. So when scripture, by listing all the "generations" from Adam, the first human, to Jesus indicates the first human was created from "dust" less than 7000 years ago, they say some of the "generations" were between grandfather or great grandfather and the listed offspring. Never mind even if you allow 100 years for each "generation" you still do not get anywhere near where "science" says the starting date seems to be.

When we cannot fit our reality view with scripture, much better of accept we do not know, than to believe we know better than God.

 

[Deacon]

The idea of dual revelation is nothing new.
and it certainly is not "bad fruit".
The article is a typical uninformed young-earth creationist smear attack.

I'll respond to the article, (not the one who posted it).

1. The article derides The Framework Hypothesis, which is simply an astute observation made about the account of creation in Genesis 1. In its simplest form the Framework interpretation may be used in addition to other creationist theories to show organization within the creation week. It reveals God's wisdom within the act of creation.

2. Dual Revelation is not a modern idea. We older believers might call the duality, General and Special Revelation.
...and Hugh Ross does expound a bit upon that idea to support his premise (as any preacher or author is prone to do).
Ross saying that God's creation is the 67th book of the Bible is a form of hyperbole.

Still the articles notes derogatorily that Charles Spurgeon, "in an unguarded instance", expressed a similar notion.

The idea of a duality, both of Special and General Revelation, is expressed by Paul in the book of Romans.

Romans 1:19–20 (ESV)
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

John Feinberg distinguishes the variety God's revelatory methods:

"The other preliminary point is that we must distinguish (1) revelation that is available through the created universe from (2) revelation that does not occur as part of the natural operation of the universe. Theologians call these two broad kinds of revelation natural or general revelation, on the one hand, and supernatural or special revelation, on the other. Sometimes the former is labeled original revelation and the latter soteriological revelation. As traditionally is the case in evangelical theology, I think it also best to organize our discussion around these two general foci—natural and special revelation. Though natural revelation is available through sources other than Scripture, Scripture also speaks of this kind of revelation. Natural revelation does not for the most part contain the content of special revelation, but Scripture does. However, that does not mean that Scripture is the only kind of special revelation there is; special revelation comes in various forms...."​

Feinberg, John S. 2018. Light in a Dark Place: The Doctrine of Scripture. Edited by John S. Feinberg. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. [underlining and bolding added]

Hugh Ross does not say that General Revelation by itself is enough to bring people to salvation.
His expression, "67th book" merely notes that there are other forms of revelation that our mighty God has provided.

Rob

 

[Van]

Thanks for the observation that the 67th book might refer to general revelation.

It appears that the Framework Hypothesis is an attempt to say the 7 days of the creation week are arbitrary divisions in the sequence for the purpose of aligning the account with our "current" understanding from "science." If you put the content into only two baskets, then you can rearrange the stuff that falls into those baskets.

My working hypothesis, which is just as flawed as any I have seen, is that the 7 days of the creation week do arbitrarily divide the sequence for the purpose of focusing of the 7th day, referring figuratively to His rest, which we enter upon salvation.

But the bottom line, from Job 38, is we do not know how God did it, but only that we believe He did!

 

[Deacon]

My wife teaches children using flanelgraph boards.
Many years ago she fashoned a sequence for the seven days of creation.
She showed me her work and was surprised when I arranged them along the lines of a Framework interpretation.
She has taught it that way ever since.


Rob

 

[asterisktom]

The idea of dual revelation is nothing new.
and it certainly is not "bad fruit".
The article is a typical uninformed young-earth creationist smear attack.

I'll respond to the article, (not the one who posted it).

1. The article derides The Framework Hypothesis, which is simply an astute observation made about the account of creation in Genesis 1. In its simplest form the Framework interpretation may be used in addition to other creationist theories to show organization within the creation week. It reveals God's wisdom within the act of creation.

2. Dual Revelation is not a modern idea. We older believers might call the duality, General and Special Revelation.
...and Hugh Ross does expound a bit upon that idea to support his premise (as any preacher or author is prone to do).
Ross saying that God's creation is the 67th book of the Bible is a form of hyperbole.

Still the articles notes derogatorily that Charles Spurgeon, "in an unguarded instance", expressed a similar notion.

The idea of a duality, both of Special and General Revelation, is expressed by Paul in the book of Romans.

Romans 1:19–20 (ESV)
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

John Feinberg distinguishes the variety God's revelatory methods:

"The other preliminary point is that we must distinguish (1) revelation that is available through the created universe from (2) revelation that does not occur as part of the natural operation of the universe. Theologians call these two broad kinds of revelation natural or general revelation, on the one hand, and supernatural or special revelation, on the other. Sometimes the former is labeled original revelation and the latter soteriological revelation. As traditionally is the case in evangelical theology, I think it also best to organize our discussion around these two general foci—natural and special revelation. Though natural revelation is available through sources other than Scripture, Scripture also speaks of this kind of revelation. Natural revelation does not for the most part contain the content of special revelation, but Scripture does. However, that does not mean that Scripture is the only kind of special revelation there is; special revelation comes in various forms...."​

Feinberg, John S. 2018. Light in a Dark Place: The Doctrine of Scripture. Edited by John S. Feinberg. Foundations of Evangelical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. [underlining and bolding added]

Hugh Ross does not say that General Revelation by itself is enough to bring people to salvation.
His expression, "67th book" merely notes that there are other forms of revelation that our mighty God has provided.

Rob

I hardly know where to begin. What I wrote was not a hatchet job. In fact, I just skimmed the surface. If you are really okay with the teaching of Hugh Ross then either you do not know your Bible or - and I really prefer this - you do not know what Ross's teachings really are.

Do you see no problem with Ross saying, "Science and the Bible totally agree concerning the initial condition of planet earth, that the earth began with an atmosphere dominated by ammonia and methane."? Or that he asserts that physical death in our world is not due to Adam's sin, that death existed billions of years prior to the fall?

He doesn't believe in the biblical account of creation. He characterizes evolution as a "multitude of Divine miracles", so I guess that is close enough to orthodox for some Christians to give him a free pass.

Another quote:
"Starting about 2 to 4 million years ago, God began to create man-like mammals or 'hominids.' These creatures stood on two feet, had large brains, and used tools. Some even buried their dead and painted on cave walls. However, they were very different from us. They had no spirit."

"If the time since the creation of the universe were scaled down to a single year, the whole of human history would be less than one minute." [See: The Fingerprint of God, first edition (1989), pp. 159-160, 178-179; Creation and Time, pp. 140-141; Hugh Ross, "Open Line" radio program with Chris Fabry (Moody, April and May, 1994).]

And about his dual revelation teaching. It is not the same as Spurgeon's. Spurgeon was careful to place Scripture far above the visible creation. But Ross in one of his tapes says that neither is "inferior or superior" to the other.

I stand by what I wrote.

 

[Van]

In the beginning, the earth did not exist, or anything other than God.

Darkness shrouded nothingness.

Then God spoke "Light" into existence, replacing part of the darkness with light.
Then God proclaimed the light was "day" and the darkness "night"
And the "evening" darkness passed due to the "morning" light, completing the first creation "day."

Then God spoke empty space, like sky, into existence, displacing the surrounding nothingness. The space separated the unknown above from the unknown below. And that completed the second creation day.

Then God spoke the earth into existence, with dry land and watery seas. Then God spoke reproductive life into existence, with plants growing from the land. And that completed the third creation day.

You cannot lump the sun, moon and stars into the first three days, but God's "shop light" could sustain plant life.

And you must lump the sun and moon and stars into creation of our earth within our "solar system" to fit with our current understanding from science.

Thus the Framework Hypothesis simply rearranges the sequence. I really really like Job 38's answer, we do not know... What we do know is that science was wrong in the past, and may be wrong now... And certainly our understanding of scripture has been wrong in the past, and may be a tad off in some areas now....