Читать книгу When People Speak for God - Henry E. Neufeld - Страница 10

The term general revelation is used to refer to the information that is available about God simply because he is the creator. Just as an architect, an engineer, or an artist will reflect some of himself in his work, so God is reflected in what he creates.

Commonly general revelation is seen to occur also through history, but I believe that in history and personal experience general revelation overlaps special revelation. In fact, what we call special revelation is simply a recording of an individual's experience with God.³ The two forms do not overlap completely. By observing that we live in a particular type of universe, I can make certain assumptions about God's character, but never in detail, and rarely very specifically.

Special revelation lets me know much more specifically how it is that God relates to me at my particular time and place. If God speaks to me directly, that is special revelation. If God gives me a sign, that is also special revelation. This can, of course be extended to groups, churches, and nations. (My particular way of phrasing this is guided by my desire to answer the question I asked in the preface: How can I know God's will for me? For a more nuanced definition, consult a theological dictionary.)

I said earlier that we tend to separate a doctrine of the Bible from a more general doctrine of how God communicates. If we ignore the way in which God communicates through the natural world, we will have similar problems. God expects us to be informed by all of the means of communication that he has provided.

As an illustration I recall a seminar on spiritual gifts, especially those gifts that involved speaking God's word, whether speaking prophetically or teaching from scripture. At one point a class member asked how they could know a certain thing about another person in the congregation. The question was asked with the best of intentions—the questioner wanted to know the best way to be of service to that person. Could she ask the Lord for a word, or a sign, and expect to get that information? I asked her what would be wrong with simply asking the person. She was ignoring one part of God's creation—our ability to speak, hear, and understand, in favor of a supernatural solution.

But the revelation through prophets, the supernatural revelation, and even the revelation through the person of Jesus Christ is not the whole of God’s revelation. Paul tells us: “For [God’s] invisible attributes, his unending power and divinity, have been understood and seen since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). I would suggest that this is a neglected text. Just how much can one learn simply from the creation without the benefit of direct revelation? Paul seems to think this revelation is sufficient that there is no excuse for missing the essentials of this revelation. Thus apparently one can derive from God’s created things sufficient information to come into favor with God and thus for salvation, and this is clear enough that one cannot be excused for failing to understand. I don’t think we give enough weight to the implications of this passage in Romans.

In particular, some Christians would hold that Paul's “without excuse,” is theoretical. While the information is there, we are so perverse that we cannot actually see it. Thus we are “without excuse” but we have the excuse that we are actually incapable of comprehending the information that makes us “without excuse.” It kind of goes round and round. Certain interpretations of original sin lead to this conclusion, in which humanity is to be blamed for sinning, but is in no way capable of stopping.

The Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace intervenes at this point for Wesleyan-Arminians, with its presentation of a God who sees our condition and helplessness, and extends grace to us before we ask, indeed, before we are capable of asking. For Calvinists predestination intervenes. Those who are predestined to be saved are enlightened by God.

In the late 4^th and early 5^th centuries CE, two powerful theological minds were in conflict over this very issue. Augustine held the doctrine of original sin in its strongest form. According to Augustine, human beings are not capable of seeking God or choosing good. Pelagius believed that human beings could choose either way. Calvinism was built on the pelagian understanding. If people can only choose the right by the power of God's grace, then those who receive God's grace do so, and others do not.

Jacobus Arminius, in the 16^th century also opposed Calvinism. His doctrines have been preserved through the Wesleyan tradition. Wesleyan-Arminians are often accused of semi-pelagianism, or even outright pelagianism. According to Arminians, prevenient grace given to everyone which gives them a choice, thus nobody is predestined. Doctrinally there is a difference, but the effect is that every person has a choice for good or for evil. The opportunity is provided by God, but the individual must nonetheless choose to accept it.⁴

But Paul continues later:

¹² All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. ¹³ For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. ¹⁴ When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. ¹⁵ They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them ¹⁶ on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. — Romans 2:12-16 (NRSV)

This passage makes several additional points. First, according to verses 15 & 16, this knowledge is sufficient for one to take into judgment, and God may find the person acceptable. I think this denies certain concepts of original sin which suggest that there is no option for a person to come to understand God without the scriptures or some form of special revelation. (This is different from the requirement for prevenient grace.) Second, there is an interesting possible allusion to the law written on the heart (Jeremiah 31:33), a characteristic of the Messianic age. Third, it is apparent that one can follow the law instinctively.

To make this complete, to make each person without excuse, there must not only be the necessary information, but also the ability to make the choice. Either prevenient grace or a pelagian understanding of the will provide that element.

Other passages on the creation emphasize that the creation, the physical universe, results from God’s word, from God’s will and command. This suggests that we can learn a great deal about God simply from the way he has constructed the universe. I would suggest that Christians ignore this aspect of God’s revelation too frequently

Let me suggest some questions:

1 What can we learn about God from nature?

2 What is the role of the Holy Spirit when we receive revelation?

3 Does the Holy Spirit always enlighten the mind of one who honestly seeks knowledge (a broadened, prevenient grace)?

4 How does the revelation of God in the natural world interact with direct or special revelation?

I want to suggest some answers, though I would hardly suggest these are firm conclusions.