True Revelation
I ran across this quote. Thought it might spark some discussion among some of you intellectuals (where in the heck has everybody been?). Does this mean the Bible is not true revelation?
Quote:
"If the true revelation of God is in Christ, the Bible is not properly a revelation, but the History of a Revelation. This is not only a Fact but a necessity, for a Person cannot be revealed in a Book, but must find revelation, if at all, in a Person."
... Phillips Brooks (1835-1893), The Law of Growth [1902]
Cited: Hebrews 1:1-4 (ESV)
Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making
purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.
posted by dan at 11:58 AM
5 Comments:
I prefer to say that Christ is the true self-revelation of God to humanity, and that scripture is a lesser revelation, inasmuch as it reveals Christ. I think it is still a divine revelation, just not the fullest revelation.
I often get frustrated with those who assume that when scripture uses the phrase "Word of God" or "Word of the Lord" that it is actually referring to itself rather than to Christ. As I understand John 1, Jesus is the true Word, not the Bible, except as it reveals Christ.
Quote:
"If the true revelation of God is in Christ, the Bible is not properly a revelation, but the History of a Revelation. This is not only a Fact but a necessity, for a Person cannot be revealed in a Book, but must find revelation, if at all, in a Person."
... Phillips Brooks (1835-1893), The Law of Growth [1902]
I've been thinking about this one for a while. Brooks was one of the (capital L) Liberals who lived in the hay day of the influence of the Documentary Hypothesis--you know, the four sources of the Pentateuch.
One of the best ways to understand Liberal theology is to see its connection to Hegel's view of history which suggested that history is always progressing. (Hegel's the guy who came up with the "Thesis--Antithesis--Synthesis" model for history."
Marx's view of economics was built on that notion. Therefore Communism would be the ultimate economic thesis. You could say that Communism is Hegel set to economics. In the same way, you could say that the Theory of Evolution--that life in continally progressing is Hegel set to biology.
With that in mind, you can understand Brooks in the spirit of his age. The Bible isn't revelation. Revelation is a process that is continuous and advancing. To settle for the Bible as revelation would be the same as suggesting that Feudalism is an adequate economic system for the modern world.
I don't buy Hegel's view of history. And, I don't buy the "L" Liberal view of revelation. Jesus and the Apostles absolutely grooved on the OT. To them it was ultimate revelation. And, while I understand that Jesus is the Word, I also realize that even He, sought athority in written revelation.
Lots of points here. But, one of them is that "L"iberalism wreaks of modernism every bit as much as Fundamentalism. The presuppostions of modernism are irrelevant to the emerging world. Fundamentalism is out of synch with what's begun to emerge. No doubt. But, don't think for a minute that Liberalism is postmodern. It REEKS of modernism.
Thanks for the history lesson, Bill. That certainly helps put the quote into perspective.
So how does this progressive history account for the 'was, is, and always will be'-ness of Christ? I can buy that creation can be ongoing, but that doesn't mean it negates what was before. Right?
I was also wondering how the 'history of a revelation' meshed with the Bible being 'living and active.' The "L" word would help explain that.
History and theology give me a headache, so I'm glad for those of you who get into it.
Dan,
You asked:
"So how does this progressive history account for the 'was, is, and always will be'-ness of Christ? I can buy that creation can be ongoing, but that doesn't mean it negates what was before. Right?"
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me how Liberal theology accounts for the "was, is, and always will be'-ness of Christ?"
Bill,
Yes.
Post a Comment
<< Home