A2 Reading on Revelation

8/2/2019 A2 Reading on Revelation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/a2-reading-on-revelation 1/9

Reading on Revelation

1. Printed below and available online

Mysticism – An Introductionhttp://www.ron-turner.com/mysticism.html

2. Printed below and available online

Is Christianity a Revealed Religion?http://www.theologian.org.uk/doctrine/revealed.html

2. Only available online

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of ReligionFaith & Revelationhttp://books.google.com/books?id=ODMfGKyt0JgC&pg=PA323

Mysticism – An Introduction

http://www.ron-turner.com/mysticism.html

Mysticism, an immediate, direct, intuitive knowledge of God or of ultimatereality attained through personal religious experience. Wide variations arefound in both the form and the intensity of mystical experience. Theauthenticity of any such experience, however, is not dependent on the form,but solely on the quality of life that follows the experience. The mystical life ischaracterized by enhanced vitality, productivity, serenity, and joy as the inner and outward aspects harmonize in union with God.

Non-Christian Mysticism

Elaborate philosophical theories have been developed in an attempt toexplain the phenomena of mysticism. Thus, in Hindu philosophy, andparticularly in the metaphysical system known as the Vedanta, the self or atman in man is identified with the supreme self, or Brahman, of the universe.The apparent separateness and individuality of beings and events are held tobe an illusion (Sanskrit maya), or convention of thought and feeling. Thisillusion can be dispelled through the realization of the essential oneness of atman and Brahman. When the religious initiate has overcome thebeginningless ignorance (Sanskrit avidya) upon which depends the apparentseparability of subject and object, of self and no self, a mystical state of

liberation, or moksha, is attained. The Hindu philosophy of Yoga incorporatesperhaps the most complete and rigorous discipline ever designed to

1


http://books.google.com/books?id=ODMfGKyt0JgC&pg=PA323


http://books.google.com/books?id=ODMfGKyt0JgC&pg=PA323





transcend the sense of personal identity and to clear the way for anexperience of union with the divine self. In China, Confucianism is formalisticand antimystical, but Taoism, as expounded by its traditional founder, theChinese philosopher Lao-tzu, has a strong mystical emphasis.

The philosophical ideas of the ancient Greeks were predominantly naturalisticand rationalistic, but an element of mysticism found expression in the Orphicand other sacred mysteries. A late Greek movement, Neoplatonism, wasbased on the philosophy of Plato and also shows the influence of the mysteryreligions. The Muslim Sufi sect embraces a form of theistic mysticism closelyresembling that of the Vedanta. The doctrines of Sufism found their mostmemorable expression in the symbolic works of the Persian poetsMohammed Shams od-Din, better known as Hafiz, and Jalal al-DinMuhammad Rumi, and in the writings of the Persian al-Ghazali. Mysticism of the pre-Christian period is evidenced in the writings of the Jewish-Hellenisticphilosopher Philo Judaeus.

Christian Mysticism

St. Paul was the first great Christian mystic. The New Testament writings bestknown for their deeply mystical emphasis are Paul's letters and the Gospel of John. Christian mysticism as a system, however, is derived fromNeoplatonism through the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, or Pseudo-Dionysius. The 9th-century Scholastic philosopher John Scotus Erigenatranslated the works of Pseudo-Dionysius from Greek into Latin and thusintroduced the mystical theology of Eastern Christianity into Western Europe,where it was combined with the mysticism of the early Christian prelate andtheologian St. Augustine.

In the Middle Ages mysticism was often associated with monasticism. Someof the most celebrated mystics are found among the monks of both theEastern church and the Western church, particularly the 14th-centuryHesychasts of Mount Athos in the former, and Saints Bernard of Clairvaux,Francis of Assisi, and John of the Cross in the latter. The French monastery of Saint Victor, near Paris, was an important center of mystical thought in the12th century. The renowned mystic and Scholastic philosopher St.Bonaventure was a disciple of the monks of St. Victor. St. Francis, who

derived his mysticism directly from the New Testament, without reference toNeoplatonism, remains a dominant figure in modern mysticism. Among themystics of Holland were Jan van Ruysbroeck and Gerhard Groote, the latter areligious reformer and founder of the monastic order known as the Brothers of the Common Life. Johannes Eckhart, referred to as Meister Eckhart, was theforemost mystic of Germany.

Other important German mystics are Johannes Tauler and Heinrich Suso,followers of Eckhart and members of a group called the Friends of God. Oneof this group wrote the German Theology that influenced Martin Luther.Prominent later figures include Thomas á Kempis, generally regarded as the

author of The Imitation of Christ. English mystics of the 14th and 15thcenturies include Margery Kempe and Richard Rolle, Walter Hilton, Julian of

2



Norwich, and the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing, an influentialtreatise on mystic prayer.

A number of the most distinguished Christian mystics have been women,notably St. Hildegard, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Teresa of Ávila. The

17th-century French mystic Jeanne Marie Bouvier de la Motte Guyonintroduced into France the mystical doctrine of quietism.

By its pursuit of spiritual freedom, sometimes at the expense of theologicalformulas and ecclesiastical discipline, mysticism may have contributed to theorigin of the Reformation, although it inevitably came into conflict withProtestant, as it had with Roman Catholic, religious authorities. The Counter Reformation inspired the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. ThePractice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence was a classic Frenchwork of a somewhat later date. The most notable German Protestant mysticswere Jakob Boehme, author of Mysterium Magnum (The Great Mystery), and

Kaspar Schwenkfeld. Mysticism finds expression in the theology of manyProtestant denominations and is a salient characteristic of such sects as the Anabaptists and the Quakers.

In New England, the famous Congregational divine, Jonathan Edwards,exhibited a strong mystical tendency, and the religious revivals that began inhis time and spread throughout the U.S. during the 19th century derived muchof their peculiar power from the assumption of mystical principles, greatemphasis being placed on heightened feeling as a direct intuition of the will of God. Mysticism manifested itself in England in the works of the 17th-centuryCambridge Platonists; in those of the devotional writer William Law, author of the Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life; and in the art and poetry of WilliamBlake.

Contemporary Mysticism

The 20th century has experienced a revival of interest in both Christian andnon-Christian mysticism. Early commentators of note were the AustrianRoman Catholic Baron Friedrich von Hügel, the British poet and writer EvelynUnderhill, the American Quaker Rufus Jones, the Anglican prelate WilliamInge, and the German theologian Rudolf Otto. A prominent nonclerical

commentator was the American psychologist and philosopher William Jamesin The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902).

In non-Christian traditions, the leading commentator on Zen Buddhism wasthe Japanese Daisetz Suzuki; on Hinduism, the Indian philosopher SavepalliRadhakrishnan; and on Islam, the British scholar R. A. Nicholson. The lasthalf of the 20th century saw increased interest in Eastern mysticism. Themystical strain in Judaism, which received particular emphasis in the writingsof the Cabalists of the Middle Ages and in the movement of the Hasidim of the18th century, was again pointed up by the modern Austrian philosopher andscholar Martin Buber. Contemporary mystics of note are the French social

philosopher Simone Weil, the French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,and the American Trappist monk Thomas Merton.

3



Is Christianity a Revealed Religion ?

by Lee Gatiss

Introduction

The claim that Christianity is a revealed religion is a long-standing one. It has been

made recently by Packer, Morris and Milne but according to Swinburne, it was

universally acknowledged as the Christian claim up until the eighteenth century. The

manner and extent of revelation have been debated by Christians without a clear

consensus emerging, but this only serves to highlight the "impressive agreement on the

fact of revelation." The claim goes back to the founders of Christianity, Christ and his

Apostles, and was not simply an invention of the last three centuries thought up inresponse to the loss of Christianity’s "self-evident validity".

The Concept of Revelation

The claim to be a revealed religion is made to distinguish Christianity from various

other religious systems which claim no origin outside of the created order, and which

may be (pejoratively?) described as "man-made". Christian theology claims not to be

the accumulation of ancient wisdom - mankind’s best thoughts on the topics of the day -

nor is it "an exercise in religious self-expression". The idea behind the word

"revelation" is the disclosure of something previously unknown. To claim Christianity

is a revealed religion is to set it apart from the Aristotelian idea of an inactive God,discovered through argumentation. Usually, it also refers to an active deity involved in

a purposeful act of revealing, rather than a passive God who allows himself/itself to be

revealed. Integral to the Christian claim is that God himself is both the agent and the

object of revelation.

What, it is claimed, is revealed about God is not exhaustive knowledge. It is not

possible to know everything about the Christian’s God. It is however possible to know

truly, without knowing exhaustively. It has been suggested that we cannot know God as

he is in himself but only as we experience him/it. This is a false antithesis: there is no

reason why knowledge that is gained in relation to something should be merely relative

or unreal. We may have no access to the inner being of God but all this means is thatthe initiative remains with him to reveal something of himself if he so chooses.

So, revelation is the deliberate and active disclosure by God of something previously

unknown which communicates real but not exhaustive knowledge.

How God reveals

"Revelation means the whole work of God making himself known to men and women;

the theme embraces on the one hand, all the words and deeds of God in which the

biblical writers recognized his self-disclosure, and, on the other hand, all that is

4



involved in the encounter through which God brings successive generations to know

Him through knowledge of the biblical facts." This statement by Packer brings to our

attention four areas of revelation. We will look at each in turn to discover more of the

meaning of this claim.

The Deeds of God

There are two specific types of God’s works. The first is the whole area of what is

known as General Revelation. (We will leave the other type, God’s actions in

redemptive history, until the next section where they will be dealt with more fully under

the heading of The Words of God .) General Revelation is that revelation which is

potentially available to all people everywhere. Classically, there are three areas of

general revelation in which God works to reveal himself and his purposes: in man, in

nature, and in history.

"God has revealed himself to all men in the conflicts of their moral experience." A

sense of right and wrong, a sense that punishment and reward are appropriate to each

and an internal "inkling" that God exists are undoubtedly universal. This argument from

experience and reason leads Calvin to the conclusion that "a sense of divinity is by

nature engraven on human hearts." There is biblical support for this argument,

particularly Romans 1-2. Mankind, being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27)

bears some marks of God’s character within itself: relational personhood, creativity and

other human attributes may also suggest similarities with the Creator.

"The greatness and beauty of created things gives us a corresponding idea of the

Creator." (Wisdom of Solomon 13:5). Something of God’s character is mirrored in his

creation, not just in mankind, but also in nature. This was one of Paul’s points of

contact with his pagan audiences. At Lystra for example, he points out that God has

"not left himself without testimony" but has revealed his kindness in his provision of

rain, crops, food and the seasons (Acts 14:17). Psalm 19 speaks of the heavens

themselves (the skies full of stars, the heat and light of the sun etc.) constantly declaring

the glory of God to all. This, according to Paul, points clearly to God’s existence and

power (Romans 1:18-21), so that "even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the

excuse of ignorance... there is no spot in the universe wherein you cannot discern at

least some sparks of his glory."

Some hold that the course of history also displays something of God’s nature. Not just

in the rise and fall of nations but in the smaller-scale providential acts of God, we may

discern his hand. Evidently this is a much more difficult task, as Psalm 107 points out

and following which Calvin comments that, "to weigh these works of God wisely is a

matter of rare and singular wisdom."

The discipline of natural theology seeks to formulate a doctrine of God from such

general revelation, but on its own it is an insufficient and potentially ambiguous source.

This is not a fault inherent in God’s works themselves, or in general revelation

objectively, but one which arises in our subjective appropriation of the revelation. The

diversity among philosophers who have attempted to describe the God revealed in thisway is shameful, because trying to penetrate into heaven is useless unless our eyes are

5



"illumined by the inner revelation of God through faith". It is too pessimistic to say that

general revelation does not register at all in the "sin darkened mind of the unregenerate"

and too optimistic to say it is sufficient for salvation. Rather, we must on balance affirm

the objectivity of the revelation alongside its limited utility in mediating knowledge of

God. Something of God can be perceived by the sense and grasped with the mind by

observing God’s works, but it is always obscured by the faithless eyesight of our sinfulnature. There is a possibility of revelation here, but only if God chooses to override this

defect in us.

God’s divinity and power are clearly seen, understood and made known to all, but the

minds of human beings are blinded (by sin) and they resist and reject it. Moreover,

contemplation of God’s works in man, in nature and in history may well call attention

to a moral and spiritual defect in us, but it does not and cannot reveal a solution for it.

Therefore, Christianity affirms the reality of truth revealed in this manner, but it also

affirms its limitations.

The Words of God

William Temple wished to retain the concept of Christianity as a revealed religion in

his book Nature, Man and God . However, he sought to avoid linking revelation too

closely with Scripture by claiming that, "There is no such thing as revealed truth. There

are truths of revelation, that is to say propositions which express the results of correct

thinking concerning revelation; but they are not in themselves directly revealed." What

he wanted to avoid was saying that God had spoken in some kind of verbal revelation

and to affirm instead that God had revealed himself in certain events of the past. These

special events, like the Exodus, the Exile and the Cross of Christ constitute redemptive

history, the main arena of God’s revelation. But in the oft-quoted words of Knox, "if

revelation is in the event rather than in the interpretation, revelation becomes like a nose

of wax to be reshaped according to every man’s whim." The sort of revealed religion

we would be left with if Temple was correct would be susceptible to change with every

passing season, and we would not be able to know God at all. The plain fact is that "no

event is self-interpreting" ; God must explain his actions in redemptive history if they

are to function as revelation. Without his words to explain the significance of what he is

doing we are left to grope in the dark with only our best guesses to guide us to the

divine.

God is truly concerned to reveal himself and does not simply "guide our minds into

right thoughts about Him as we watch Him in action." His self-revelation is too

important to be left to such a blunt instrument. He has spoken through the prophets,

through his Son and through the apostles to explain and interpret his mighty deeds. This

is the unmistakable force of the phrase, "Thus says the Lord " found constantly on the

lips of men like Moses and Ezekiel; it is Peter’s claim in Acts 10:42, that the Lord Jesus

had commanded him to preach and to bear witness to specific truths about God’s

purposes; and it is the clear teaching of Jesus when he claims that his words are not his

own (John 7:16; 14:24). Not only does God explain himself whenever he acts ("Surely

the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the

prophets." Amos 3:7) but often prefaces those acts, even at long distance, by verbal predictions and explanations.

6



How Jeremiah or Malachi (for example) knew that the message they verbally delivered

was of God we are not told, but they were convinced and compelled to speak and act as

if it were. At certain points in Israel’s history signs and wonders accompanied the

words of the prophets (particularly Moses and Elijah) as a seal of

authentication/confirmation on their words. Even when these were not forthcoming

however, God’s voice was somehow recognised. This verbal revelation, mediatedthrough the prophets, is God’s usual method of revelation in the Old Testament; only

once do the people of Israel hear God’s voice unmediated, and it so terrifies them that

they beg Moses to never let it happen again! (Exodus 20: 18-19). Moreover, God

speaking is itself an event in redemptive history; even the Creation was preceded by

God’s instrumental "Let there be light." We cannot separate word and deed.

Encounter With God

"In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and invarious ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son." (Hebrews 1:1-2).

God has not simply revealed himself in deeds, or even in word and deed together. His

definitive revelation was made personally, in his Son. To a particular group of people at

a particular time in history, God revealed himself in human form. As Jesus himself told

his apostle Philip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9).

Personal encounter with Christ, not just revelation in words or deeds, is a distinctively

Christian revelation. Such personal encounters did not cease with Christ’s ascension; in

Acts, Luke describes how Jesus continued to encounter men and women through his

Spirit (Acts 1:1, with the implication that volume 2 is about the continuing acts of

Jesus). The apostle Paul describes his own personal encounter with Christ thus: "when

God ... was pleased to reveal his Son in me" (Galatians 1:15-16).

This aspect of divine revelation has been stressed in recent years. It is said that

revelation is personal, not propositional. So, William Temple can affirm that, "What is

offered to man’s apprehension in any specific Revelation is not truth concerning God

but the living God himself." This, however, is just another evasion of verbal revelation.

For, in the words of Leon Morris, "How can we know God unless we know something

about him?" This idea that revelation is more personal than propositional is another

manifestation of the twentieth century’s obsession with the idea of personality and

relationship; it fails to realise however that relationships require propositional content to

function. "Revelation is certainly more than the giving of theological information, but itis not and cannot be less... To say that revelation is non-propositional is actually to

depersonalize it." It is a wonderful truth that God loves us and wants to enter into a

personal relationship with each one of us, but if he cannot speak we have a dumb

"Lover-God who makes no declarations."

Personal encounter with God is vital to revelation, but it does not usually occur in the

absence of verbal communication of some kind. Indeed, the usual means of

experiencing God is through his word. Revelation is not just the broadcasting of

divinely guaranteed information, but a personal confrontation. When we meet his word,

we meet God, and are called to respond to him as the author of that word.

7



The Word of Scripture

The fact that God speaks to us in his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, must not allow us to

detract from the means whereby we come to hear of him. As Henry succinctly puts it,

"We must distinguish between the ontological Word incarnate and the epistemological

word inscripturate." It is vital to stress this, not only in view of the attacks made on theScriptural revelation by William Temple and non-propositional ideas of divine

disclosure, but because of the more heavy-weight opposition of Karl Barth’s neo-

orthodoxy. It is Barth’s claim that we know God in Christ, and in him alone. He denied

the possibility of constructing a natural theology of even a limited kind from general

revelation, and relegated Scripture from being the Word of God to being merely a

testimony to that Word. Only Christ should be called the Word of God. The Bible

contains only the words of men who experienced Christ and then bore witness to him in

writing (and proclamation, of course). This seems to elevate Christ even above

Scripture. Whilst it is not a bad motive to seek to elevate Christ, Barth went too far in

his denials.

God’s word to humanity is more than just an existential encounter with the risen and

ascended Lord Jesus. Even in the early days of the Church this was recognized to be so.

Paul thanks God that the Thessalonians received, heard and accepted the gospel, the

Word of God, not as the words of men but as God’s word (1 Thessalonians 2:13). This

shows quite clearly that Paul did not consider "the Word of God" to be limited in

definition to the ontological Word incarnate; the "word" is not just a personal but also a

verbal revelation. Therefore, if special revelation gives us propositional truth and verbal

communication from God himself, it is not surprising to find it written down in a book:

"Only written documents are capable of preserving the insights communicated in

revelation over time and making them available to the people who come later."

What the Scripture contains is not just a record of God’s deeds, or even of his

explanatory words which accompanied those deeds. In Scripture itself we possess a

revelation, which stands as valid for all time as a disclosure of the character and

purposes of God. If it were merely the testimony of fallible men about Christ (although

it most assuredly does remain human) and not God’s own authorized word, we would

still be uncertain about whether we possessed revelation. For men can get it wrong, but

in Scripture, God "opens his own most hallowed lips" to testify. It is not just a record of

his word, it is his word. In comparison to General Revelation, the Scriptural Revelation

is "a more direct and certain mark whereby [God] is to be recognized."

So, God reveals himself in man, in nature, in history, in redemptive acts, interpretive

words, personal encounter and supremely in Scripture.

Objective Revelation, Subjective Appropriation

Despite the many and various ways in which Christianity can be seen as a revealed

religion, it does not claim that the mechanism of revelation is an automatic one. We

cannot compel God to speak, and our part in the process is by no means unimportant.

The revelation is real but not coercive. "One of the many divine qualities of the Bible isthis, that it does not yield its secrets to the irreverent and censorious." Profitable

8



appropriation of revelation requires illumination through faith. Only then can it be

accepted and become true revelation.

The Validity of the Claim

We have been considering the validity and coherence of the claim that Christianity is a

revealed religion throughout this essay. Different theories have been examined as to the

manner and extent of that supposed revelation, and we have examined the validity of

those which seek to modify the traditional position.

Is the claim to have any revelation at all a valid one? Whether it is a true claim or not, it

is certainly a strong possibility. For the atheist there is no God and therefore there can

be no revelation. For the agnostic, if there is a God, he is unable or unwilling to speak

clearly. If, however we may assume that there is a God is it valid to claim he has

revealed anything? Several factors suggest that it is:

1. A supreme God "must necessarily be able to reveal himself."

2. "A deliberate, total self-effacement on God’s part [would be] a denial of love."

3. The kind of revelation we possess is of a kind to be expected.

4. Our own personal/relational nature might indicate a similar divine attribute issuing in

revelation, with the purpose of establishing relationship.

5. It is the only adequate explanation for Christianity.

6. It is the only adequate explanation for the distinctiveness of Old Testament religion.

7. It is the best explanation of the claims of the prophets, of Christ and of the apostles.

8. It is the best explanation for the Church’s claim to revelation.

Christianity is a revealed religion. We have explored the meaning of this claim. It is a

valid one, and indeed, a true one. Therefore, let us not forget the words of Packer:

"God’s purpose in revelation is to make friends with us."

9

Documents

A2 Reading on Revelation