THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION (CONTINUED)

At this point in our discussion about revelation, we now turn to an important consideration.  We will now look at the element of illumination.  What is illumination? Some may think of illumination as an "enlightenment," or perhaps as an "epiphany," or something that comes all of a sudden out of nowhere and that is not the result of human effort or initiative.  I personally would place illumination in the same category as revelation, i.e. something that is external to the human mind.  

Illumination presupposes that the intellect or mind is darkened and not able, on its own to comprehend truth.  In the past, it has been suggested and thought that the mind has been darkened by the effects of sin. In other words, the notion is that the rupture in the relationship between God and humankind has affected the human's ability to grasp divine truth.  

Because of the Christian mission to the Gentiles, Christian apologists in the second century were drawn into conversation with Hellenistic culture.  Like many theologians after him, Justin Martyr, the premier apologist of the period, appealed to the prologue of John's Gospel account and its description of Jesus Christ as the logos or the Word of made flesh for a common ground with Hellenism, especially Platonism and Stoicism.  In his Second Apology, Justin argued the superiority of Jesus's teaching to that of Socrates and all other human wisdom on the basis that Jesus alone was the entire Word of God.  Justin did not argue that the Word of God could be found only in Christ.  On the contrary, he believed that the teaching of Plato, along with other Greek writers, was not different from that of Jesus but only a dim interpretation of Him who was the word incarnate.  The logos, as he conceived it, is implanted in all people, but although it can be found in various places, is fully embodied only in one place or person-in Christ, who in turn illumines all others (Stroup, op cit., pp. 117-118). 

This, of course, raise the question as to whether everyone at one point or another in history, had a notion of Christ.  Did the Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and others who lived thousands of years before the emergence of the Judeo-Christian tradition  experience the "Word" in their own way?  If so, what then, are the implications of Jesus having said that He is "the way, the truth, and the life?"  Was the Christ incarnate in some pre-existing way in these other faith traditions?  

Justin was only one of many theologians who have used the prologue to John's Gospel account as a warrant for interpreting revelation as divine illumination.  The claim that  it is God who enables the believer to come to the knowledge of deity was a major theme in the theologies of Augustine, Bonaventure, and Thomas Aquinas.  In his commentary on the Gospel according to John, Augustine sounded a theme that is to be found throughout his theological writings: the identification of Jesus Christ as the light which illumines the darkness of the human intellect and overcomes the blindness created by human sin (Stroup, p. 118). 

"We too, have been born blind of Adam and have need of Christ to enlighten us," said Augustine.  His description of illumination is strikingly similar to Plato's comparison of the idea of the good with the sun, except that for Augustine the Word of God is not only that which illumines the the darkness of the intellect, evokes faith, and makes understanding possible, but also that which is itself illuminated and made known to the believer.  In order to make this point, Augustine drew a distinction between the Word's illumination of the intellect and what the intellect knows when it is illumined.  In his treatise on the Trinity  he maintained that the light which illumines the intellect is not intellect itself, but the intellect cannot know what is true apart from this illumination.  What remained unclear in Augustine's theology was the precise nature of the "light" and its relation to the intellect (Augustine, "Homilies on the Gospel of John," NPNF 7:203). 

So once again we raise the notion of a prior "light" which may have enlightened humankind throughout its history.  Is is possible that when Buddha claimed to be "the enlightened one," that he was experiencing the illumination of the pre-incarnate logos?  Was the logos already operative in human history prior to Bethlehem or did He/It appear suddenly in human history in the first century C.E.? 

The problem received considerable clarification in the theology of Aquinas in the thirteenth century.  Aquinas modified and extended Augustine's description of the divine illumination of the intellect.  He began by describing the human intellect in terms of two powers: the passive intellect and the agent intellect.  The latter, he argued, has its origin in the divine light but is not the divine light itself.  In order for human beings to attain ultimate happiness-which Aquinas understood to be the supernatural vision of God-they must first be taught by God as pupils are taught by their master.  Faith, for Aquinas, was an act of assent by the intellect to those things "taught" or revealed by God.  But the intellect cannot even assent to what has been revealed unless it is illumined by God's grace.  When grace makes faith possible, the object of faith is that of truths taught in Scripture and the traditions of the Church (Stroup, p. 119).

It appears from what has been said above that Augustine and Aquinas were "on the same page."  However, I am not sure that Augustine would leave room for the volitional assent of the intellect as Aquinas did. I am not suggesting that Aquinas was leaning more towards Pelagianism, nor the later development of Arminianism.  But it does certainly appear that Aquinas was not so deeply entrenched in the notion of the "noetic" effects of sin as to completely paralyze and incapacitate human volition.

How can we, if at all, solve the tension between volitional assent to illumination, on the one hand, and on the other hold fast to the notion that an entity which "dead in trespasses and sin," is incapable of being receptive to illumination on its own?  It is, indeed, a very complex issue, and to which we may not find an answer in our lifetime.  Nevertheless, we continue to "live with the questions," and to acknowledge that when we deal with the fine and technical points of theology, that even then, theology is a human construct, and that whatever conclusions we arrive at are tentative, and only "true" until proven otherwise.  

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Former Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

                                                  

                                 THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION (CONTINUED) 

Like with every other doctrine, we raise the question of "how did it all begin?"  In this case we ask the question as to when did the Church start to construct the doctrine, or even the notion of God's self-disclosure? 

It should be obvious to the readers of the New Testament, that the first-century Church did not have an elaborate or well thought-out system of doctrines or a "systematic theology," as such.  The first-century Church was too focused on how to deal with the persecution that was coming against it on the one hand, and on the other hand, the emergence of heresy within its circles.  Indeed, the Church had "a lot on its plate."  It was a real active and busy church.

There is no "doctrine" of revelation as such in the Bible, and many of the problems addressed by recent interpretations of revelation were simply unknown to the writers of Scripture.  Indeed, there is considerable evidence for one biblical scholar's argument that for the writers of Hebrew scripture, "apart from some quite limited concessions,  there is no stage at which God is not known (James Barr, Old and New in Interpretation: A Study of the Two Testaments.  New York: Harper and Row, 1966, p. 89)"

The writers of Hebrew scripture do not offer arguments for the existence of God  and do not discuss the plausibility of claims about God in relation to competing alternatives, whether those of natural sciences or the human sciences.  The Bible assumes knowledge of God.  The issues that have come to constitute the "problem" revelation-the relation of reason to revelation, the limits of reason, and the historicity of human understanding-are not issues in scripture.  That does not mean, however,  that the Bible is not  used as a resource in later discussion of revelation.  Both classical and contemporary discussion of revelation appeal to themes in scripture as warrants for their interpretation (George Stroup, op. cit., p. 116).

Although in the first seventeen centuries of the Church's history theological reflections on revelation assumed various forms, it is still possible to identify certain formal features that characterize most interpretations of the doctrine.  Usually revelation is interpreted as having both an objective and a subjective dimension.  The objective dimension refers to what is revealed, while the subjective dimension refers to how revelation is received.  The precise way in which revelation is interpreted often depends on which of the dimensions is given primary emphasis (Ibid.).

The objective dimension of revelation (what is revealed) may be construed in various ways.  It may be understood as proposition, an infallible teaching of scripture, the Gospel or Word of God, God's will toward the world, the personal being of God, or the moral order.  These different interpretations of what is revealed yield distinctive doctrines of revelation, and not surprisingly, different interpretations of Christian faith.  If the object of revelation is understood to be the Word of God in the person of Jesus Christ, faith will take a different form than if the object of revelation is understood to be a proposition or a doctrine, regardless of where it is found it is found (in scripture or in tradition).  Some versions of the former interpretation tend to emphasize the  effect of revelation-the Spirit's gift of saving faith-while some versions of the latter seek a more objective basis for faith in an inspired scripture or church (Ibid.).

In our continued search, things will become clearer as we sketch two models of revelation in classical theology.  They are: 

Revelation as illumination of the intellect 

Revelation as encounter with the Word and Spirit of God  

In both of these models, we will discover that  some interpretations  lean in the direction of the objective, and others that lean in the direction of the subjective (Ibid. p. 117).

En fin, our inquiry on the doctrine of revelation leads us to ask if there is a distinction between the objective and the subjective in divine revelation, or if they are one and the same.  We will learn to identify or distinguish between the "giver" and the "given."  We will also deal with whether the way we appropriate revelation is the way that God intended or wants us to appropriate it.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Former Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 

THE DOCTRINE OF REVELATION 

One of the things that is unique in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition is that of revelation.  By revelation, we are referring to the notion of God's self-disclosure in history.  In this tradition, God takes the initiative to reveal Godself to humankind through Scripture, tradition, and experience.  In some respects, Christian theology builds on the tradition of revelation in Jewish theology, and Islam builds on the tradition of revelation of both Jewish and Christian theology.  

Traditionally when Christians have attempted to explain what they know about God, and how they have access to that knowledge, they have appealed to something called "revelation."  In most versions of Christianity, revelation has served as the epistemological (knowledge base) for theology, that is, an appeal often has been made to revelation in order to account for knowledge of God.  Today, however, it is no longer clear what revelation means or how it provides knowledge of God.  Revelation is sometimes understood to refer to  dramatic moments, such as Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, or highly emotional events of the sort that take place at revivals.  While these interpretations of revelation are not uncommon, they are unfortunate because they obscure what revelation has traditionally meant and the important role that it has played in Christian faith and theology.  Furthermore, these misinterpretations of revelation are symptomatic of much deeper problems besetting any attempt to reinterpret revelation in the contemporary world (George Stroup in "Revelation."  Christian Theology: An Introduction to its Traditions and Tasks.  Peter C. Hodgson and Robert H. King, eds.  Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. p. 114).

Revelation has generally been understood to be correlative with faith.  Christians feel compelled to talk about faith in terms of "revelation" because they believe that faith is not the result of human discovery or inquiry.  Faith does not discover its object; it is on the contrary, constituted by it.  Christian faith is human response to what has been unveiled or disclosed by faith's object.  The unveiling or disclosure is what theology refers to as "revelation (Ibid.)"

So, in essence, what we are talking about relative to revelation, is the interaction between the one who initiates the revelation, and the one (or ones) who respond to it.  God is the initiator and humankind is the respondent by way of inquiry and research.  

Three aspects of this broad interpretation of revelation are worth noting.  First, revelation means an unveiling or, to use a more contemporary idiom, a "disclosure."  When revelation takes place, a veil is dropped and that which had been masked or hidden from view is disclosed (Stroup, op. cit. p. 114).

Second, the event in which this unveiling occurs cannot be initiated by human activity.  The initiator of the event is not the individual who witnesses the disclosure, but rather the agent  disclosed or unveiled in the event.  The very use of the word "unveiledness" and "disclosure" suggests that what makes itself known in a revelatory event is the stuff of mystery.  Revelation yields not the solution to a problem, or the answer to a difficult question, but the unveiling of a mystery (Ibid.).

Third, although faith is a human act, revelation is not.  Because revelation refers to an event in which what is made known exceeds the grasp of human inquiry, the event is attributed to God's grace.  Whatever else the doctrine of revelation is about, it is a statement about the grace of God.  Revelation is not at the disposal of human inquiry or control, and consequently, it becomes an even only by means of grace (Ibid.).

NOTE: It should be indicated, that in the Pauline-Agustinian-Calvinist tradition, faith itself is a gift of God, divinely given to those who God has predestined to eternal life.  In other Christian traditions, faith is a volitional act on the part of those who hear the proclamation of the Gospel, and subsequently, those who willfully respond in faith to the proclamation, are elected to eternal life.

While most interpretations of revelation share at least some of these formal features, there are also important differences between the classical descriptions of revelation and various contemporary forms of the doctrine.  These differences are so severe that in many respects contemporary interpretations of revelation bear only a formal resemblance to their classical predecessors, and sometimes not even that.  One reason for the sharp differences between classical and contemporary interpretations of revelation and for the present disarray in contemporary theology is that revelation, the traditional foundation for knowledge of God, has become problematic; it is no longer clear what revelation means and whether revelation provides theology with an adequate basis for its claims about God.  Why this alteration in the interpretation of revelation has taken place and what it implies about the future of theology will be the major concerns of this ongoing inquiry (Stroup, op. cit. p. 115).  

Since theology is an ongoing constructive task, we will be subject to redefinitions and redactions in terms of the language which we use.  Because theology is tentative, we remain open to ongoing revelation and to how that revelation is defined and understood.  We keep in mind, during this journey of inquiry that theology is a humanly-generated construction, and that subsequently, it is subject to redaction and revision relative to its approaches, methodology, and hermeneutical usage.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Rev. Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary 

 THE DOCTRINE OF GOD (CONTINUED) 

THE ENCOUNTER WITH OTHER RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS 

What are the possible new issues confronting Christian theology at the present time?  We can say that there are various issues, and yet, in examining them, we will discover that many of them are not so new. Many of them are really a regurgitation and resurrection of issues that have been  brought up in the past.  We may think that they have been "laid to rest," just to find out that they were simply buried and "put on hold" until another time.  

One of the most, if not the most important one is the encounter with other religious traditions.  Some may say that it is not a valid theological pursuit to engage with other religions, because from our Christian theological standpoint, these other traditions are either totally false or "partially true."  As Christians we may be so arrogant as to think that we have the truth of God "sewn up in our pockets."  That would amount to, in my humble opinion as both a believer and as a theologian, to presumptuousness and also to Christian theological imperialism. 

In our present situation, religious faiths, like political and economic systems, encounter one another regularly and intimately.  Since this encounter of the religions, in the last several decades, has become an omnipresent reality, the relation of Christian theology to other, non-Christian modes of "theology" has emerged as a burning issue.  Not only have Christianity and Christians "encountered" other religions, they have also encountered this religions as bearing power and and as embodying vital, healing, redemptive forces providing unique illumination  and grace to our ailing cultural life and our somewhat impoverished existence.  No longer, therefore, is it possible for Christians to declare other faiths either devoid of truth (as did orthodoxy) or primitive or less developed steppingstones to the absoluteness of Christianity (as did the early liberals). The suggestion that within other religions the promise of salvation is present and also the truth is experienced is now admitted and affirmed by many.  But if that be so, what does it mean for the uniqueness of Christian revelation, for the finality of Christ's incarnation, and atonement, for the salvation of non-Christians-and a thousand other important theological questions (Gilkey, p. 111)?

I know that many Christians will fall back on the passages of Jesus saying that He is "the way, the truth, and the life," and Paul saying that there is only "one mediator between God and humankind," and Peter saying that "there is no other name given under Heaven whereby we must be saved."  Having said that, we can easily pose the question as to just exactly what do those passages mean? Does that mean that the millions of people who lived and died before the Christian era have no hope because they never heard the name of Jesus the Christ.  Did God condemn them to eternal damnation for lack of knowledge?  Or can we say that there are universal elements in those passages which we have not cared to explore, taking the easy and dismissive way out?  Is Jesus the "Cosmic" Christ who transcends all religious doctrine, dogma, and theology, or is He restricted to the Christian faith? Does a person have to shed their prior faith and religious tradition in order to have a relationship with God through Christ?  

Understandably, most of the new debate on these matters has centered on the crucial questions of special revelation and Christology. And many have assumed that that, were these christological doctrines to be liberalized or toned down, the issues vis-a-vis other religions would dissipate. Important divergences (say, with Hinduism and Buddhism) appear in connection with every significant theological or philosophical question, from the that of the nature of reality and our knowledge of it, through the nature of human being and its "problem," to the understanding of history and final salvation (Ibid., p. 112)

In conclusion, it is safe to say that the encounter of religions with one another and their subsequent dialogues with one another will effect radical changes in the discussion of God carried out by every present form of Christian theology.  To predict what new directions these changes will represent is really only to state what our preferences are, where we think the understanding of God "ought to go," granted this encounter.  As for the direction it will in fact go, we have no insight except to suggest that, even more than an encounter between Catholicism and Protestantism, a close encounter with the other religions will effect noteworthy changes in every recognizable form of contemporary discussion about God (Ibid.).

We might choose to remained entrenched in our theological cages, believing that there is no "truth" outside of them, or we might open our cage to engage with people in other cages, who together with us are in search of truth.  We might "close down" on dialogue with non-Christians, or we may opt to engage in a "give and take" dialogical exchange.

This theologian/writer opts for the latter, believing that no religious tradition has a monopoly on God, and that God-in-Christ, comes to us in ways that God alone determines, regardless of how obstinate, reticent, and stubborn we may be.  Let God be God.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona

Past Visiting Professor of Theology 

Tainan Theological College/Seminary  

 THE DOCTRINE OF GOD (CONTINUED)

In spite of the difficulties relative to defining the doctrine and idea of God, the quest continues to obtain  an understanding  of what and who God is.  Because we cannot understand God in God's full essence and nature,  is no reason to give up on trying to articulate an idea of God that makes it possible for us to acknowledge and affirm the existence of God, in spite of the reality that we are "living with the questions."

All the answers that can be offered to the myriad of questions concerning the nature of God, each answer has its power and persuasive adherents.  Those who emphasize the knowability of God by reason have offered one version or another of the classical "proofs" of God: the cosmological, from the existence of the finite world, the teleological, from the order of the finite world, the ontological, from the implications of the concept of God itself as a concept of a perfect and so necessary being ; and the moral argument, from the implications of moral existence.  These widely variant forms of philosophical approach have been united in in arguing that any theology intellectually respectable enough to speak to modern, intelligent people must represent its religious heritage in the intellectual form of such a rationally grounded philosophical theology.  Without such a philosophical base for our knowledge of God, our certainty of the divine reality and our comprehension of the relation of this concept to our other concepts will be seriously lacking.  As a consequence, the idea of God will increasingly be regarded as merely subjective and idiosyncratic, a private matter of "feeling," and therefore unreal, a private image unrelated to to the width of all experience, vacant of content, and in the end meaningless (Gilkey, op. cit. p. 101).

There are those who have shared a jaundiced view of culture's reasoning  and of its philosophical "proofs"; on religious grounds they have emphasized the transcendence and mystery of God.  They are not at all unaware that most contemporary philosophy has come to regard metaphysical speculation and all proofs of a divine reality as representing a dubious and uncritical use of reason, and therefore itself devoid of certainty, objectivity, or meaning.  They also have sensed the ideological and invalid character of such "modern" thinking.  For them modern thought, far from providing an objective and valid ground for our ultimate faith, itself represents a significant aspect of the modern problem, needing itself new principles of illumination if it is to help our religious existence (Ibid.).

More important, the main problem of the knowledge of God, they insist, is not that we cannot know God with our finite minds, but that in fact secretly we do not all wish to know God.  Thus natural theology represents the persistent and systematic attempt of self-sufficient people to create a "God" of their own and so to avoid relationship with or knowledge of the real God.  A philosophical God, the product of our own metaphysical thinking and the construct of our own wayward modern wisdom, may be infinitely more comfortable for us to live with.  Nevertheless, such a "God: is a far cry from the real God who confronts us in judgment and may confront us therefore also in grace.  Furthermore, the very center of Christian promise resides in the re-creation of what we are, and of how and what we think, not in their mere extension and solidification.  Thus God-not "our own words to ourselves"-must speak to us in revelation. Such an event of revelation provides the sole basis and the sole norm for the religious existence of the Christian community from which and for wish valid and legitimate theology speaks.  To be sure, theology does not speak to the world as well as to the church, but in its speech it must seek to represent not the wisdom of the world, but the message of the Gospel, not the word of humanity, but the Word of God. Theology may use philosophy in explicating this message in coherent and adequate form.  Its primal obligation, however, is to be faithful to revelation and not to pressures of public rationality as the world defines rationality.  Faith therefore precedes and controls the use of reason in theology, i.e. "I believe in order to understand," rather than I understand in order to believe" (Ibid., pp. 101-102)

Therefore, we understand that the doctrine of God has its rational component and foundation.  Having said that, we deal with the issue of whether theology constructs God in a human image, or whether the human, as the Scriptures state, are created in the image and likeness of God.  Theology also has its revelational component, i.e. bases itself on the divine self-disclosure, which comes at God's initiative.  Theology sees to it that the language it uses about the divine is a a language of concepts and terms that are understandable to whose who are engaged in the theological task, whether they be lay, ordained, or professional in their engagement.

In the Name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer. Amen.

Dr. Juan A. Carmona 

Past Visiting Professor of Theology

Tainan Theological College/Seminary