Integrating special revelation, general revelation, and knowledge obtained by human learning
By luke g. on Jul 22, 2010 in Creation
Last night I taught on the subject of Creation for a class I’m teaching on Systematic Theology. I tried to responsibly introduce the students to the various theories regarding Creation, from the literal 24-hour day theory to the abandoned spontaneous generation theory. We discussed a bit about evolution and immediate and mediate creation and a few other significant topics.
I also revealed my cards a bit. I informed them that I currently hold to Genesis 1 describing literal 24-hour days, I also am finding myself more in line with the Literary Framework view, as I tend to see Genesis 1 as both “literal” and “literary.” I haven’t come down as a hardliner in those areas yet, but I’m enjoying my study.
That being said, I have an interesting book that I’ve been working through – Coming to Grips with Genesis. The book advocates young earth creationism and interacts with scholars and theologians from other perspectives. In it, on page 128, I find the following three principles of interest:
- While all truth is God’s truth, not all truth is revealed truth and not all statements that claim to be truth are actually true
- Revealed truth is certain, while non-revealed truth claims can often be wrong and are subjective to change. For example, the content of Genesis 1-2 is absolutely certain by virtue of it being divinely revealed truth, while scientific theories of origins are tentative at best.
- Revealed truth should help to interpret non-revealed truth/knowledge. For example, the certain contents of Genesis 1-2 should be used to validate or invalidate the tentative scientific theories on origins.
What do you think of these three principles? Are they helpful or misleading? Do you agree that “scientific theories of origins are tentative at best”? Can such language be helpful for Christians are harmful for apologetic interaction? Or is it helpful for Christians and in discussions with non-believers? Does such guidelines cause an unnecessary divide between special revelation and general revelation or knowledge obtained by human learning? Or do we need to maintain that divide in order to keep our emphasis on the uniqueness and sufficiency of Scripture?
Great questions…and ones I’ve been struggling with for a few years. I’m in a weekly men’s group right now going through a Grudem’s Systematic Theology and this came up in his text, thugh not necessarily specific to creation.
I would say that the conclusion reached is similar to what you read…that (based on the presuppositions if inspiration, authority, and inerrancy) God’s specific revelation through scripture is certain in a way that it is the guide, lens or rule in understanding natural or general revelation.
I would agree…but add that sometimes I think truth uncovered in natural revelation can compliment our understanding of scripture or even correct our erroneous interpretation of scripture.
The classic case being a helio-centric universe correcting the theology of the day which was earth centric…based on a grammatically literal reading of scripture in part.
Now is this the case for evolution an creation? I don’t know for sure but I’m hesitant to right off the scientific world’s claim to overwhleming evidence for both and old earth and universe and evolution of the species. There are many faithful believers who are convinced by the evidence (CS Lewis was one). Could it be that this natural revelation can compliment our underastanding of scripture and override some traditional interpretations? There have apparently been some ancient theologians who argued against a strictly literal view of Genesis.
But, there are issues with that view as well. So I remain undecided with sympathies in both camps.
novice | Jul 23, 2010 | Reply