God Defines Truth
I’ve been reading According to Plan, by Graeme Goldsworthy, and this part really stuck out. Goldsworthy has been talking about the three ways of viewing knowledge. The first is the humanistic understanding, which is the default position for humanity. With this, people assume that they are capable of getting and understanding knowledge, that “the human mind is the final judge of what is or is not true.” Christians, of course, cannot affirm this. But we have another tendency, as Goldsworthy writes:
There are some people who think of God as, to varying degrees, an extraterrestrial with expert knowledge to share with us. We may describe these broadly as theistic humanists.
…This position is humanistic in that it also sees man as being able to control his knowledge-gaining. To the degree that he is really in control, he is independent of God. He investigates the universe and discovers facts, which he then organizes into a coherent body of knowledge…
But, so the argument goes, there is a realm of truth that we are not able to observe directly. If we are to know anything about this spiritual or supernatural realm, we must receive special or supernatural revelation. The theistic humanist sees this knowledge as filling the gaps in our naturally gained knowledge…but it will not affect the essential nature of what we have already discovered…Since we already understand something of the nature of reality, the theistic humanist is likely to see God as being subject to the same laws of the universe as we are. Thus we are able to draw up rules by which we decide what is reasonable. It is inconceivable that God could say something that is contrary to reason. Human reason will therefore sit in judgment on the Bible…[1]
Goldsworthy then introduces Christian Theism, which acknowledges God as creator and revealer of all things, not only some mystical supernatural stuff. This is a paradigm shift indeed! For before we know God personally, we cannot help but be humanists. We are centered around ourselves and what we think we can know. But once we are His, God begins to turn us into God-centered souls—theists. This doesn’t happen instantly, and this is why most of us are theistic humanists; we haven’t confronted all our sinful assumptions yet.
First, this has important ramifications for the idea of General and Special Revelation. There must certainly be a distinction between “general” and “special” revelation, but it is impossible to draw it at the point where we become unable to “find things out for ourselves.” Rather, we must acknowledge that we can know nothing—nothing—without it being revealed to us by God, whether we realize it at the time or not. We should define “general” revelation as that which God allows us to know about His creation. And we must define “special” revelation as God’s self-revelation. The sinful heart does not naturally come to these conclusions. The ancients were humanists. Though they had many things right, yet they had it all wrong, because they did not understand where their knowledge came from.
Secondly, God cannot be limited by logic. In reading Norman Geisler’s book Chosen But Free, I realized how attempting to reduce God’s ways to logic doesn’t work, and always ends up contradicting the clear revelation of Scripture. God can’t be limited by the science we call logic, which is really nothing more than how we’ve observed that the world works in most circumstances. It’s like saying that God, were he physical, must needs be limited by the law of gravity. Certainly Christ seemed subject to these laws most of the time, but there were remarkable, visible exceptions, like the Ascension. Logical principles, like the “law of non-contradiction” are no different. We are subject to this law; God is not. Consider the mystery of the nature of Christ, who was 100% God and 100% man in every way. He even had both a human and a divine spirit. He wasn’t half-&-half. This is a contradiction, since how can someone be one Person and yet have two spirits that are one somehow? It doesn’t work. It’s a contradiction. Yet Christ was it. If we can affirm the Incarnation, we also ought to affirm the mysterious compatibility of the mandate to choose Christ and the unrestricted, completely sovereign electing power of God. Don’t try to understand how they fit together—it’s not logical! We can’t get our minds around it. But we must affirm that it is absolutely true, because God has said it. It’s there in the Bible, over and over again.
[1] Graeme Goldsworthy, According to Plan (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 40.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I’m not sure I like saying that Christ’s dual nature is a contradiction — that may lead us somewhere more Kierkegaardian than I care to go. Consider a model of knowledge similar to that of Polanyi or of Plantiga’s “Reformed Epistemology,” that roots our ability to know in the fact that God has made our minds such that they fit into this reality — etc. I assume you have some basic familiarity with the concepts; if not, I commend the subject to you, it’s fascinating stuff, and I think very useful.
Interestingly, Abelard was made to quit teaching, at least in part (I understand — I think from Dr. Smith) because he was elevating Logic rather than Theology as the prioritized science. The Church wasn’t interested in going there — to which I can only say, good for them.
I do agree that in the “special” and “general” revelation conversations we are far too prone to forget that these are the adjectives, and the basic thing being discussed is “revelation.” Of course all knowledge of any sort is a gift from God, thus an act of grace (being undeserved). I wonder whether we overemphasize the importance of the categorization in the first place… it’s not a distinction specifically made by Scripture. It may just be a “distinction of reason” (you need to take Metaphysics) — useful for human understanding and thought, but not an intrinsic division in the thing itself — in this case, knowledge.
Just thoughts a-rambling. Correct, complete, or whatever may be necessary.