revelation as doctrine.

REVELATION AS DOCTRINE


How God reveals himself to his creation is revelation. Human response to revelation is the main thrust of theology. Therefore, the question of what is revelation becomes a vital issue. We must know of what to respond. Revelation is divine authority. The Christian responds to God’s revelation and some assert without a prior act of God to reveal himself faith is impossible. Many theologies presuppose the existence of divine revelation. For these reasons the examination of different models of revelation is a vital exercise. Avery Dulles wrote, “Models of Revelation,” in which he depicts five different models of revelation. The first model described in his book is that of the conservative view of revelation as doctrine. This paper will examine this model closely and identify the shortcomings of Dulles description by examining the other models presented within his book.


Dulles Definition of Revelation as Doctrine

The first model Dulles describes is what he calls the doctrinal model revelation. Dulles chooses to place this model first in his book because of the long historical standing amongst other models of revelation. He points to B.B. Warfield, J.I. Packer, John Warwick Montgomery and Carl F.H. Henry as proponents of this model. He doesn’t differentiate between individual views of these men, but places all of them in thes same category. (In other models he attempts to identify differences of individual proponents of certain models). Dulles outlines a view held by Warfield to describe the basic idea of this model. Through nature God has revealed himself (general revelation). But the effects of sin do not allow the fallen human to have a saving knowledge of God apart from special revelation. This special revelation is necessary. God revealed himself through prophetic visions and other supernatural events in early biblical times. The culmination of this revelation occurs in the life and death of Jesus Christ. All the teachings of the prophets and apostles have been gathered into what is now called scripture which is the whole and final revelation of God . In Dulles words: “God is seen as an infallible teacher who communicates knowledge by speech and writing. The recipients, as pupils, are expected to be attentive and docile.”

Dulles identifies the widely held idea of plenary verbal inspiration. The entire scripture is considered inerrant. What is mentioned in scripture is given supreme authority. Other strengths Dulles notes is the traditional significance of this model and the internal coherence. Individuals within the church are unified and grow together because of a sense of identity is cultivated amongst the body. Along with this is a sense of mission given to the body to proclaim what they know to be true.

One of Dulles main criticisms of this model is that “every declarative sentence in the Bible, unless the contrary can be shown from the context, is to be taken as expressing a revealed truth.” In today’s world, Dulles says, this is simply not plausible. Dulles points to the increase of critical biblical scholars and their findings as reasons the bible has lost authority. Underlying all the criticisms Dulles offers in his book is the narrow view held by those who adhere to this model.


Critic of Dulles Definition

Dulles defines many aspects of this theory adequately. Within any of the models more could be said to make things more clear, but the book only served as an overview of the different models. Dulles correctly defines divine revelation and the emphasis upon developing doctrine. Dulles also accurately portrays the importance of inerrancy within the proponents of this model. However, Dulles description seemed to lack in content in certain areas and also was overly critical in areas which Dulles defined this model too narrowly.

The propositional model asserts that the gospel does not include all truth. And while reliable natural theology is impossible divorced from special revelation, general revelation is still divine. Therefore God can be seen in other realms such as science, history, etc. The Bible is not the only way to know God. This is where Dulles definition of the propositional model falls short (and remedies his criticism of the model’s narrow view). Within this idea it would incorporate many of the positive aspects of the second historical model of revelation such as God being known through his acts in history. The bible serves as an interpretation of these events.

Dulles accurately describes the idea of two types of revelation: general and special. Dulles also accurately states that special revelation is needed for salvation. But in doing so Dulles makes it appear as if all special revelation is salvific which is not true. Because of sin natural revelation has been distorted and therefore no one responds to natural revelation rightly. This is depicted in chapter one of Romans. No where within this chapter is a person described as having rightly responded to natural revelation. Because of this special revelation is needed to interpret the general revelation. And while proponents of this model would assert that salvation is not attainable apart from special revelation, they would also propose that all special revelation is not salvific.

Dulles places emphasis upon the meaning of words. Advocates of the propositional model would assert the Bible is a divine verbal revelation from God and therefore is not dependent upon meaning. Meaning is a human’s interpretation and thus error is inevitable. The direct words in the Bible are revelation, not the interpretation of these words. While the Bible is always true, perhaps the statements made within are of divine negation. Meaning they are accurate statements of something which is false.

Conclusion

Dulles book offers a great overview of the different models of revelation adhered by different people today. However, his depiction of the propositional model is narrow in certain areas. The actual propositional doctrine of revelation encompasses many positive aspects of the other models described by Dulles. One of the main emphasis and strengths of this model is attention given to the inerrancy and authority of scripture. Also, as compared to other models this specific doctrinal model maintains coherency throughout and a unity amongst this models proponents.