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