Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
This doesn't follow because the Holy Spirit works by and with the Word and points to Christ. Hence, there is no basis for saying the Holy Spirit aids our scientific inquiries even as He aids our understanding of Scripture.Afterthought said:But one of the arguments to arrive at this position was by comparing general revelation to special revelation, so what's to stop one from arguing, "We have the Holy Spirit's aid in special revelation, so why not in general revelation too?" In which case, the two disciplines seem to become on an even plane of authority such that sciences could correct Scripture interpretation, and Scripture interpretation could correct sciences.
I agree with that. As I've been pondering over this topic this past week and trying to figure out precisely where the disagreement lay, it seems that I was not disagreeing about the efficacy of the facts of general revelation, nor that the problem of wrong conclusions lies with human error. It seems to be a disagreement over content (though I'm still not sure that general revelation means all knowledge we have outside of Scripture) and purpose, yet not an entire disagreement. Perhaps then, it is a matter of distinguishing what is said when speaking about the content of general revelation, since I would agree that all facts of Creation are in general revelation.Philip said:Here's what I'm saying: if we start arguing that any part of God's revelation, general or special, is in error, we start doubting God.
Interestingly, it seems Calvin in his Institutes allowed for facts of the natural world to be included in general revelation in some manner; though I don't see how if God is revealing a fact about the natural world for us to know, we can be stopped from saying that our natural human sciences are on the same level as theology. But I do notice that general revelation is wordless and less specific, and that may be enough to keep theology on the higher plane it seems it should belong on (and keeping us from saying God aids our scientific inquiries or attaching a somewhat divine authorization to scientific conclusions). As for the argument that Scripture contains facts that are not strictly about God and so we can expect such in general revelation, I'm not convinced that it follows general revelation contains such, since it could be general revelation, being a different sort of revelation, reveals different sorts of things; yet, I'm not sure I could prove that, and I'm not sure who has the burden of proof in arguing for a kind of revelation holding certain kinds of facts; so that argument leaves me inconclusive on the matter. Admittedly, if I understand him correctly, Calvin does give a rather interesting argument for general revelation containing such facts, and I'll have to think about that some more.
Regardless, it seems this thread has served its purpose (unless there are further comments, especially ones correcting errors or bringing clarity), and it seems the question I asked that started this trail about general revelation is answered (vaguely) as follows: since the revealing of God through the facts of Creation seems to mean that the facts of Creation are included in that revelation too, it would seem then that all knowledge is revealed in a sense. It seems to be the sort of sense in which the revelation of general revelation is "discovered" by man (rather than merely received, as in special revelation?), albeit, "discovered" using the faculties God gave man to use. Perhaps my problem was importing too much meaning into "All true knowledge is revealed by God to man" and so becoming confused to think that the revelation in both cases are exactly equal in every sort of way (including having God's aid in the same way in our interpretation of both).
I agree that such a conclusion (that our interpretation of Scripture or of Creation is in error) is a logical possibility, but I'm not sure it is the conclusion to be made in actual reality, because I'm not sure how much authority general revelation has in correcting or guiding our interpretation of Scripture, but it appears this is a topic for another thread: how much should general revelation affect our interpretation of Scripture? Or How much authority does general revelation have, given our faculties were made by God? I shall probably make it soon. Thank you for the good discussion!Philip said:Indeed we could. Last I checked, most theologians are at peace with the sun being the center of the solar system even though there have been theological positions to the contrary.
Let's be honest here: there is precisely one area where there is a seeming conflict between what general revelation says and what Scripture says. I have, after searching the scriptures and weighing certain things, concluded that the traditional interpretation of Scripture is correct. I don't think that science has examined the question of origins sufficiently from the proper perspective.
Last edited: