Dual Revelation

[Afterthought]

Dual revelation is the view that the facts of Scripture and facts of Creation are both equally given by the revelation of God (just as Ezra is equally revelation with 1 John), and so are on equal footing in terms of authority, never contradicting each other. Hence, the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Creation will never contradict each other if the interpretations are correct, and the interpretation of Scripture and interpretation of Creation are on equal footing. Hence, if there is a contradiction between the two, one or the other interpretations must be wrong.

Are there any thoughts on this concept and/or the support for this concept? The arguments usually rely on such things as...

(1) God is the author of both Scripture and Creation, so there should be no reason they should contradict each other, they are on equal authority, etc.

(2) Truth is truth, wherever it is found. A property of truth being non-contradiction, Creation and Scripture can never contradict, and hence true interpretations thereof never contradict, etc.

(3) Scripture is special revelation and Creation is general revelation. God never reveals contradictory things, so Scripture and Creation should not contradict each other, etc. (This is related to (1) and is probably where the name "dual revelation" comes from.)


However, it seems that (3)-(4) misunderstand general revelation (understood as the thing by which revelation is given). General revelation is supposed to reveal God, not Creation. It is God's revelation of Himself in nature, not God's revelation of nature in nature. So the terms of this question are confused from the outset. Nevertheless, there may be Scriptural support in Psalm 19, and even conceding the view that general revelation is a distinct concept from the "nature" that is the object of empirical scientific study, it seems the argument might be strengthened a bit and some of the arguments remain untouched by this observation (though the view of Creation and Scripture as being revelation of God in the manner first proposed needs to be modified accordingly), since they do not necessarily entail the view that Scripture and Creation are both given by revelation? So the new set of arguments would be:

(1) God is the author of both Scripture and Creation, so there should be no reason they should contradict each other, they are on equal authority, etc.

(2) Truth is truth, wherever it is found. A property of truth being non-contradiction, Creation and Scripture can never contradict, and hence true interpretations thereof never contradict, etc.

(3') Psalm 19 specifically says that the "works of God's hands" or God's "handiwork" are revealed. Hence, God reveals not only Himself in nature but also the world and men, and the conclusions follow.

(4) It may be the case that God reveals Himself in nature, rather than nature, but if the facts of nature aren't revealed as well ("along for the ride", as it were), then the revelation of God in nature cannot occur. The means of God revealing Himself is nature, so in order to reveal Himself, the means being facts themselves, the means are necessarily revealed too.

(5) Not to mention that if the means weren't revealed, there could be a potential distortion of general revelation, even if those to whom it was revealed were sinless. Finitude and fallibility would keep men from knowing the facts of nature perfectly, e.g., an incorrect scientific theory would reveal something different about God than a correct scientific theory, but incorrect scientific theories are bound to occur in an empirical investigation of a non-verbal Creation.


My own thoughts in response to (1)-(2) are that they can be admitted as true. As an example case, Scripture shouldn't contradict reason or the senses (under proper conditions). However, the idea that contradiction means the interpretation of one or the other is incorrect can only be admitted as a logical possibility (there is reason to believe that empirical science will contradict special revelation anyway since they speak to different knowledge realms, so the conclusion doesn't follow anyway, but for the sake of discussion, I'd like to leave this point out). In reality, our interpretation of Scripture is more likely to be true than our interpretation of Creation for several reasons, such as Scripture being verbal, more clear, and having the Holy Spirit's illumination.

And further, what does it mean for Creation and Scripture to contradict each other? Creation is non-verbal. Its data must be organized to come up with a proposition. Scripture needs to be interpreted too, but its data is verbal data, so it is one interpretive step removed from empirical scientific propositions. So it seems a bit odd to speak of Creation and Scripture as having the same authority anyway or that our interpretations of them have the same level of authority (there may be other reasons this is the case, but I'm not quite sure what it is; there may be an equivocation somewhere as often occurs with things that seem reasonable on the surface).

As a further question then, would my understanding of these matters be correct in my response? If so, I have another question about the clarity of general revelation and special revelation given sin, but I have probably packed enough into a thread OP for now.

 

[jwithnell]

The two means of revelation is the position of the Westminster Standards. There is no superiority of one over the other except that only special revelation gives us the way of saving faith. Nature is not some entity unto itself, so saying creation only tells us about God is a false dicotomy. The creation reflects the creator and makes discoverable knowledge -- science -- possible while at the same time shows us something of God's grandeur, beauty, glory and so forth. This is an amazing grace that enables us to worship Him in all his splendor.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, it has been bothering me to figure out if special revelation is superior to general or not. RC Sproul says that he once had a class and he asked them to raise their hands if they thought special revelation was inspired and infallible and everyone raised their hands then asked the same question of general revelation to which they all hesitated.

In reality, our interpretation of Scripture is more likely to be true than our interpretation of Creation for several reasons, such as Scripture being verbal, more clear, and having the Holy Spirit's illumination.

Very true and also general revelation suffers the effects of the curse and sin, which I think leans the favor toward special being more clear, as both are effected by fallen sensory input devises to interpret so mistakes can be made on both sides in interpreting general and special revelation but the tipping point is that general revelation itself is affected by the curse the scriptures are pure (unless we bring critical scholarship of texts in then maybe you could make a case for both.)

A couple other factors, as you said it is verbal and plenary which makes it more clear, to the point, a better medium of communication.

Also interestingly special revelation can open our eyes to the truth of general revelation but general revelation can not open our eyes to the truth of special revelation (in the sense that it can only give enough information to condemn us not save us) but special revelation can tell us about the nature of God as judge and as savior, it can tell us about nature and the supernatural.

So I am inclined to say that special revelation is superior, but i still don't want to go that far if I don't have a solid case, and I am new to this discussion and am not certain what all the reformers said on this topic.

The reason I have been wrestling with this is because a well known old earth creationist claims that nature is the 67th book of the bible, and though science (when properly understood and interpreted beyond our present scope of knowledge) will never disagree with special revelation in the scriptures and person of Jesus. but it cannot give suffienct knowledge for salvation, so it can't be considered scripture, though it is truth, can it be called another book of the bible? I'm all confused on this subject. Here's an article I read recently http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/something-missing its simple and makes a lot of sense.

 

[Afterthought]

The two means of revelation is the position of the Westminster Standards.

Not as defined in the thread's OP. The version of "dual revelation" presented in the thread's OP has facts of Creation themselves being the content of that revelation, being the things revealed, rather than the things revealing. Granted, the Westminster Standards are silent on this "extended" view of revelation, but then it cannot be said to be their position. As for superiority, special revelation has generally been seen to have more clarity and more content; whether that makes it superior or not depends on what purpose one is attempting to achieve, I suppose; if it is superior in all purposes though, then it is clearly superior. Once we add sin into the mix things get a little messier, but I wanted to save that discussion for later because if the facts I have presented are not right, I don't see how the rest will fall in place properly.

Nature is not some entity unto itself, so saying creation only tells us about God is a false dichotomy.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "dichotomy," but to clarify, the "telling" I am speaking of is "revelation," not the facts of Creation that can be discovered (to which "telling" can also be applied in a less strict sense, e.g., scientists sometimes wonder when looking at tricky data, "What is nature telling us?").

I am new to this discussion and am not certain what all the reformers said on this topic.

Since you are new to the discussion, you may find the two or three articles at creation.com on the subject helpful, if you haven't read them already. I don't know whether they are written from a Reformed perspective, but the authors I've read on this matter (like Turretin) do seem to concur so far as the nature of general revelation is concerned.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Cool yeah I think I've glanced through them on creation.com, i don't know though i've been reading a lot on there lately. I did want to interject to help the flow of clarity on the thought process, to avoid the fallacy of reification, saying "nature speaks" or "Revelation says (this one might be ok)" "nature tells us" I did it, earlier sorry. Hope that helps clarify this discussion a bit. Fascinating and theologically important discussion though!

 

[KMK]

What are the 'facts' of creation?

 

[Afterthought]

Cool yeah I think I've glanced through them on creation.com, i don't know though i've been reading a lot on there lately. I did want to interject to help the flow of clarity on the thought process, to avoid the fallacy of reification, saying "nature speaks" or "Revelation says (this one might be ok)" "nature tells us" I did it, earlier sorry. Hope that helps clarify this discussion a bit. Fascinating and theologically important discussion though!

What are the 'facts' of creation?

For those who believe empirical science is an approximation to reality, it is those facts which empirical science ideally approaches to uncovering. They are usually seen to be analogous to the "facts" of Scripture in that the "facts" are simply there but nevertheless require interpretation to be understood or used. As I noted in the OP, it is possible there is a problem with the concept of "facts" of creation in that the "facts" require interpretation to bring them about (since they are non-verbal). I suppose that theologically, we might see the "facts" as the works of God's hands, the stuff of Creation in its relationships and properties. In practice, the "facts" tend to be whatever empirical science discovers, but I'm trying to put forward the position in the strongest form I can conceive.

 

[KMK]

In practice, the "facts" tend to be whatever empirical science discovers,

Can empirical science truly discover 'facts'? Isn't the best empirical science do is discover theories? If so, doesn't that make empirical science subject to the special revelation of Scripture?

Maybe I don't understand the question.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Both sources of revelation (natural & special) have a single origin, namely God himself. So each source expresses truth objectively. Neither source is intended to work in an independent fashion from the other. To take a trivial example: special revelation makes use of natural gifts such as hearing (or other communication techniques) and a functional mental process to convey the form of truth intended.

The issue for man is his ability to accurately interpret what his receptors engage. An unfallen man has a much higher expectation for accuracy in the realm of natural-interpretation than fallen man. However, not all facts (hypothetically) will be perfectly interpretable to even a sinless mind, because man is not omniscient. He isn't close to it. So in a universe that dwarfs him on an epic scale, not even mastery of physical principles and mathematical concepts can supply man with a full accounting of either what or why the universe is as it is and contains what it contains. To claim they can is no less a sweeping "religious" claim than Christianity's concerning the Bible. It is the ultimate expression of man's mind as the measure of all things.

This limit, though applicable to all men at all times and places, is more evident in post-fall conditions than pre-fall. In times past, when (according to modern thought) men were more "primitive," they explained more of their experience of the world with recourse to "the supernatural." Ostensibly, experiences which were explainable on nature's terms were a low-percentage. Now (supposedly) so much of human experience in the world is explicable purely on nature's terms (surely, it is confidently posited, a high-percentage, and ever-increasing) the idea of special revelation and its interpretive aid is viewed as quaint, or perhaps even pernicious. But this modern view is delicately balanced on the unproven assumption that advanced maths and physics have supplied the keys needed to unlock the universe's complete store of knowledge, and that for every two questions that are answered, only one more remains. All that is required for full understanding and integration of all remaining unknowns is 1) finding them (what), and 2) fitting them (why).

Conveniently swept under the rug in this scenario is the scope of the unknown, and the growth of anomalies. Forgotten (or never acknowledged) is the reality that every system of explanation has followed much the same course, prior to its replacement as inadequate--and each method or system is "self-conceived" by practitioners as indispensable. Everyone has always lived life by employing a degree of control on their immediate environment, for which control they were dependent on learning "the rules" of that environment. Beyond that span of control, man has always relied on prediction. And prediction has always verged on the realm of special revelation. Today, prediction is a "science," presided over by the "high priests" of the modern age. And as in other ages, successful predictions are given prominent celebrations (exhibit A, Higgs boson), and the blizzard of data unquantifiable on the present table is "not relevant" until a bit of it has been officially "found" (see #1 above).

But complete or satisfactory answers to "what" and "why" considered from a purely natural perspective will never be forthcoming, in a universe that was created by God who is himself not part of it, nor it a part of him. The grand transcendence of the true and living God means that the Bible's (special revelation's) unique contribution to man's knowledge is more than a "just-so story" for the world. It starts with a radical treatment of man's and his environment's origins and present condition (no backwards reasoning here); and continues with a complementary narrative to history, supplying a useful "outside" perspective, which is conveyed by select receivers on the "inside" (prophets). This is simply taking the Bible on its own terms, which necessitates the rejection of every kind of competing explanation, whether supernatural, natural, or a combination.

Because special revelation is not directly concerned with supplying man with complete explanations for every natural question, there is plenty of room for man's making the most of his arsenal of investigative techniques into nature, and for the invention of many more. The mistake too often entered into is the belief that given the right technique man can read and interpret nature's "book" with the kind of accuracy that he can read or process special revelation. The same issue crops up in everyday lives (not just at the level of grand decision making and cutting-edge science) when man tries to read Providence the way he might read the Bible. Absent a "special" interpretation of events, the best and only recourse is to a natural interpretation (even if unknown), with a general appeal to divine sovereignty and design encompassing all eventualities. The promises of God, e.g. Rom.8:28, are the believer's shield against the wildness of unpredictable forces beyond his control. Even if man can predict a tremendous event empirically (scientifically) or rationally, and his local, environmental span of control is a bit larger than it once was, he's typically at the mercy of the forces unleashed upon him. He's totally dependent on the grace of God--or if he doesn't believe in him, then he's merely a statistical quantity in the win/lose, survive/die columns.


In short, natural and special revelation are equally true as regard the source (God), but are unequally accurate as regards the receptor--Man, with his limits and his moral defect (he prefers the lie, Rom.1:18, 28; 2Ths.2:11f). Special revelation is peculiarly clear with regard to those subjects to which it speaks most directly (man's relationship to God, man's predicament, God's remedy); and helpfully clarifying regarding environmental matters that the reader/receiver should accept in a true way in order for the message to have its full and intended impact upon him. Special revelation by its very nature is designed to minimize direct environmental mediation/filtering. It assumes within its message a level of accuracy respecting the natural realm suitable to the audience--and not simply the "original" audience.

There is no "war" between science and Scripture, as if God could be at odds with himself regarding the messages he sends. There is a "war" against those who preference for accuracy the innate clarity of verbal, rational communication from outside the universe, waged by philosophical naturalists who have an a priori commitment to denying any externally sourced (to the universe) information. They demand that you believe they are sufficient guides for interpreting the universe as (exclusively) matter and motion, based on the idea that they have already led man out of his millennia-long struggle in the swamp of ignorance and superstition (a stage which they themselves concede was a cosmic forward-leap out of a brute ancestry).

 

[Afterthought]

I'll make a response soon. Just posting a link to an article that mentions the thing that seems to me to be frequently overlooked (but since so many overlook it, I wonder if I'm the one who is actually missing something), which I have already mentioned in the thread: that general revelation reveals God, not nature. http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj9a.pdf

Of course, as I also already mentioned in the OP, this only pushes arguments a step backward, but there is a qualitative difference between "God reveals Creation. It is called 'general revelation'" and "God reveals Himself in Creation. It is called 'general revelation.' But by the light of nature, we can learn many truths about those things that reveal God." More on this in my replies later, unless these things clarify any remaining confusion so that the arguments of and theory presented in the OP can be supported or rebutted.

 

[py3ak]

Raymond, that distinction is often one that is difficult to draw, as past discussions have revealed. But you are correct to think that natural revelation is a revelation of God, not a revelation of how the universe functions.

 

[Afterthought]

Can empirical science truly discover 'facts'? Isn't the best empirical science do is discover theories? If so, doesn't that make empirical science subject to the special revelation of Scripture?

This could very well be the case, but whether it is the case (and definitely at least whether such is relevant) depends on one's philosophy of science. I'm not entirely settled in my mind for or against scientific realism, but I have admittedly given up one of its tenants by affirming the descriptive nature of science; whether a scientific realism can still be maintained while affirming that, I'm still thinking over. Proponents of this dual revelation theory would say that the theories are a systematic organization of facts or that they are an interpretation of the facts. For those who additionally hold to scientific realism, the interpretations may or may not coincide with reality. Further evidence and observation will show whether such is the case or not, and in theory (since Scripture and nature are theoretically on the same authority level for our knowledge), where Scriptural data touches on such matters, Scriptural data will also help determine the case.

An additional way I've thought of to explain what "facts" of Creation... They are the object of empirical observation and reason. Interpreting those observations and reason leads to theories.

Perhaps it also may be helpful to note that dual revelation proponents often draw an analogy to special revelation by claiming Scriptural data and observational data are analogous to each other in that they are the "raw" data; theology and scientific theory are analogous to each other in that they are interpretations of their respective data fields; and the pastor (or doctor) and the scientist are analogous to each other in that they are the interpreters of the data in their fields; each pair are on the same level of authority, with "raw" data having more authority than interpretations of it. Proponents will say that all our knowledge is revealed by God in either special revelation or general revelation. Pastors or doctors study special revelation, giving rise to knowledge of that revelation (theology); scientists study general revelation, giving rise to knowledge of that revelation (science). (However, it should be noted that there still may be a subtle sense in which it is true that all our knowledge is revealed by God; I have noticed such being said by some on this board.) If it is said that empirical science can at best discover theories, then it will be responded that at best, theology can only discover "theories." However, proponents might rather say that interpretations in either realm are discovered, and when those interpretations are true, then facts have been discovered too.

Hopefully this helps clarify the questions I have asked in the OP.


As an aside, a tricky thing with reading these proponents is that they will start by defining general revelation in an agreeable manner as God's revelation of Himself in nature or the revelation of God in nature, but then by their argumentation they suddenly implicitly jump to the extended view of general revelation as a revelation of nature along with a revelation of God. I suppose though that "revelation of God in nature" could be understood as "the revelation that God gives in nature," so it is possible that those who use that particular phrase aren't actually changing definitions.


@Rev. Buchanan: I'll respond a little later still.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Both sources of revelation (natural & special) have a single origin, namely God himself. So each source expresses truth objectively. Neither source is intended to work in an independent fashion from the other. To take a trivial example: special revelation makes use of natural gifts such as hearing (or other communication techniques) and a functional mental process to convey the form of truth intended.

Very helpful!

An unfallen man has a much higher expectation for accuracy in the realm of natural-interpretation than fallen man. However, not all facts (hypothetically) will be perfectly interpretable to even a sinless mind, because man is not omniscient. He isn't close to it.

I definitally understand what you are saying here and want to amen you on that last part. I was wondering what you thought about "We shall know as we are known"? So does the same thinking that prefall Adam had equal the thinking and understanding we will have in heaven? Or will ours be better? Surely it will be better on some levels for instance we will know God better because we see His justice, and mercy in a light we never would have without a fall (an abbreviated form of my standard answer to the common question: "why did God allow the fall?").

This limit, though applicable to all men at all times and places, is more evident in post-fall conditions than pre-fall. In times past, when (according to modern thought) men were more "primitive," they explained more of their experience of the world with recourse to "the supernatural." Ostensibly, experiences which were explainable on nature's terms were a low-percentage. Now (supposedly) so much of human experience in the world is explicable purely on nature's terms (surely, it is confidently posited, a high-percentage, and ever-increasing) the idea of special revelation and its interpretive aid is viewed as quaint, or perhaps even pernicious. But this modern view is delicately balanced on the unproven assumption that advanced maths and physics have supplied the keys needed to unlock the universe's complete store of knowledge,

Franci's Schaffer's "Escape From Reason" speaks brilliantly to this. Quick read too.

The mistake too often entered into is the belief that given the right technique man can read and interpret nature's "book" with the kind of accuracy that he can read or process special revelation. The same issue crops up in everyday lives (not just at the level of grand decision making and cutting-edge science) when man tries to read Providence the way he might read the Bible.

Very well said.

Special revelation by its very nature is designed to minimize direct environmental mediation/filtering. It assumes within its message a level of accuracy respecting the natural realm suitable to the audience--and not simply the "original" audience.

Praise God! Thanks, now that just really helped, me, like a good warm devotional kind of "helped me" though it was technical. Great stuff!

Conveniently swept under the rug in this scenario is the scope of the unknown, and the growth of anomalies.

I was wondering where you stand on this, but since becoming reformed I lean far more on the assumption that God's special revelation was revealed for a reason, in others words its not packed with mysteries, His mysteries are outside of the revelation but the bible is meant to be almost thoroughly understood (except future prophecy, and meat for milk Christians) versus my pre reformed mindset that deut 29:29 applies to everything Christians bicker about; predestination/free will, verses speaking about losing your salvation/some seem to say you can't, and other issues that aren't particularly linked to the Arminian/Calvinist debate but are usually left unanswered and for the sake of "peace peace" they are relegated to "mysteries" or "paradox" (failing to see that the definition of paradox, is apparent contradictions which means that with enough work they can be solved). In reading De 29:29 lately I do believe that is ripped way out of context to support the usual statement: "well its a mystery that belongs to the Lord, we won't understand it until we get to heaven, who knows why God put it in the bible but its not supposed to be understood by finite humans, its a paradox". Am I wrong in interpreting the doctrine of perspicuity in this way. I don't mean to side track the OP but I think this is directly relevant, I don't need a huge answer, just something I'd like some more opinions on.

Perhaps it also may be helpful to note that dual revelation proponents often draw an analogy to special revelation by claiming Scriptural data and observational data are analogous to each other in that they are the "raw" data; theology and scientific theory are analogous to each other in that they are interpretations of their respective data fields; and the pastor (or doctor) and the scientist are analogous to each other in that they are the interpreters of the data in their fields; each pair are on the same level of authority, with "raw" data

Very interesting way of looking at it, I think the question for these proponents would be "Does the bible view it this way? does God view it this way? Does God expect us to view it this way?"

(However, it should be noted that there still may be a subtle sense in which it is true that all our knowledge is revealed by God; I have noticed such being said by some on this board.

I just posted this on my facebook status earlier today: "God's Word has absolute epistemic authority and it is the necessary presupposition of all knowledge which man possesses. All our knowledge must be receptive reconstruction of God's primary thoughts." - Greg Bahnsen

 

[Afterthought]

Thank you, Mr. Buchanan. That is an excellent analysis. It gives a few other points of inequality between the light of nature and special revelation (e.g., that the light of nature can only give an understanding from "inside" the universe, while special revelation gives an outsider's perspective).

In short, natural and special revelation are equally true as regard the source (God), but are unequally accurate as regards the receptor--Man, with his limits and his moral defect (he prefers the lie, Rom.1:18, 28; 2Ths.2:11f).

This summarizes the matter quite well (assuming that by "natural revelation" you are referring to the "light of nature" rather than "general revelation," but the statement seems true even in that case). It seems I was correct in admitting the logical possibility that in case of a conflict of interpretations, one or the other must be wrong, but in reality, the one derived from special revelation is much less likely to be so.

This leads into the question I held off from the OP: Do the noetic effects of sin so cloud our interpretation of Scripture that our interpretation of Scripture also cannot be regarded as "certain" and is thus on the same level of authority as interpretations of nature? Intuitively, I want to say, "NO! We don't believe "interpretations" of Scripture, but what the Scriptures say." But then that position seems to strong too if pushed, e.g., how could we ever be wrong about what the Scriptures say, and what would we do with the phenomenon of "Scripture twisting?" And there does seem to be some sort of distinction between the interpretation of Scripture and what the Scriptures say. I'm tempted to think of nature as not "infallible," but whenever a truth of nature has been discovered, truth has the same qualities wherever found; so while it feels uncomfortable to refer to the facts of nature as infallible or inerrant, I'm not sure what could be used to refer to it?

Raymond, that distinction is often one that is difficult to draw, as past discussions have revealed. But you are correct to think that natural revelation is a revelation of God, not a revelation of how the universe functions.

Thanks for confirming that!

Very interesting way of looking at it, I think the question for these proponents would be "Does the bible view it this way? does God view it this way? Does God expect us to view it this way?"

Those are good questions for them. For the bible viewing it this way, they would normally use the confused understanding of general revelation in order to support their position. But in an attempt to put their position on better ground (and I think some of them do it this way too), I put (3')-(5) in the OP as arguments for them. For the other two questions, (1)-(2) would be their arguments. Appeals to the noetic effects of sin in trying to put the bible in its place as a superior authority would be met with: "That affects interpretations of Scripture too, so interpretations of either are still on the same authority level."

I just posted this on my facebook status earlier today: "God's Word has absolute epistemic authority and it is the necessary presupposition of all knowledge which man possesses. All our knowledge must be receptive reconstruction of God's primary thoughts." - Greg Bahnsen

This is a good point. The other way I was thinking of was in terms of us only knowing what God in His Providence gives us to know (which was a way brought up by another I discussed this with in a previous thread). I think there's one more way too, involving the idea of God being wherever truth is, but I'm not sure how to articulate it yet.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

assuming that by "natural revelation" you are referring to the "light of nature" rather than "general revelation,"

Wait so are "light of nature" and "general revelation" different?

Appeals to the noetic effects of sin in trying to put the bible in its place as a superior authority would be met with: "That affects interpretations of Scripture too, so interpretations of either are still on the same authority level."

This is the crux of my current theological struggle.

Do the noetic effects of sin so cloud our interpretation of Scripture that our interpretation of Scripture also cannot be regarded as "certain" and is thus on the same level of authority as interpretations of nature? Intuitively, I want to say, "NO! We don't believe "interpretations" of Scripture, but what the Scriptures say." But then that position seems to strong too if pushed, e.g., how could we ever be wrong about what the Scriptures say, and what would we do with the phenomenon of "Scripture twisting?" And there does seem to be some sort of distinction between the interpretation of Scripture and what the Scriptures say.

This is a round about way of answering it, more of a two cents kinda thing, or a maybe this will add a bit to your thinking process. When it comes to interpretation of general revelation we can not escape its influence, it is in everything we do, in mountains, streams, the sky. Gravity, supernovas, quantum mechanics. Civil government appointed by God, and the biggest I think in some ways, being made in the image of God (self knowledge must start there) in a society of others made in God's image. So in some senses I don't think general revelation is all that hard to interpret, especially since its main goal seems to be God's justice holding men accountable. Or as Sye Ten Bruggencate says that when we stand before God at the judgment seat He is not going to condemn men who didn't know Him, but condemn men who knew Him but suppressed His truth in unrighteousness. "God doesn't send men to hell for denying a God they don't know but for suppressing the truth of a God they do know and hate."

But special revelation seems to be a slightly different case, it tells us in it that God gives us teachers, who then presumably have been given more light by God to interpret special revelation. Spurgeon says this:

So, beloved, the Holy Spirit is with us, and when we take His book and begin to read, and want to know what it means, we must ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the meaning. He will not work a miracle, but He will elevate our minds, and He will suggest to us thoughts that will lead us on by their natural relation, the one to the other, till at last we come to the pith and marrow of His divine instruction. Seek then very earnestly the guidance of the Holy Spirit, for if the very soul of reading be the understanding of what we read, then we must in prayer call upon the Holy Ghost to unlock the secret mysteries of the inspired Word.
If we thus ask the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit, it will follow, dear friends, that we shall be ready to use all means and helps towards the understanding of the Scriptures. When Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch whether he understood the prophecy of Isaiah, he replied, “How can I, unless some man should guide me?” (Act 8:31). Then Philip went up and opened to him the Word of the Lord. Some, under the pretence of being taught of the Spirit of God, refuse to be instructed by books or by living men. This is no honouring of the Spirit of God; it is a disrespect to Him, for if He gives to some of His servants more light than to others—and it is clear he does—then they are bound to give that light to others, and to use it for the good of the church. But if the other part of the church refuse to receive that light, to what end did the Spirit of God give it? This would imply that there is a mistake somewhere in the economy of gifts and graces, which is managed by the Holy Spirit. It cannot be so.
The Lord Jesus Christ pleases to give more knowledge of His Word and more insight into it to some of His servants than to others, and it is ours joyfully to accept the knowledge that He gives in such ways as He chooses to give it. It would be most wicked of us to say, “We will not have the heavenly treasure which exists in earthen vessels. If God will give us the heavenly treasure out of His own hand, but not through the earthen vessel, we will have it. But we think we are too wise, too heavenly minded, too spiritual altogether to care for jewels when they are placed in earthen pots. We will not hear anybody, and we will not read anything except the book itself, neither will we accept any light, except that which comes in through a crack in our own roof. We will not see by another man’s candle, we would sooner remain in the dark.” Brethren, do not let us fall into such folly. Let the light come from God, and though a child shall bring it, we will joyfully accept it. If any one of His servants, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, shall have received light from him, behold, “all are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1Co 3:23), and therefore accept of the light that God has kindled, and ask for grace that you may turn that light upon the Word, so that when you read it you may understand it. (from Anthology, section on sanctification)

I hope that's not too far off topic but it bears relevance on interpretation, which seems to be the crux of the problem here in deliberating about the noetic effects of sin on our ability to interpret revelation, both general and special.

I wonder if you could comment on the relevance of the image of God in respects to general revelation in context of our conversation, thanks.

 

[Afterthought]

I'm pretty much out of time, since school starts up again Monday. I will respond to this one question for now because it may help others in replying to the thread and then I will get to the rest at some future date.

Wait so are "light of nature" and "general revelation" different?

From what I understand, they are overlapping but distinct concepts, and it partially depends on how they are defined. As another pointed out to me on a previous, similar thread to this that I started, "general revelation" can refer to either the thing revealed or to the act of revealing. I think there's a third sense in which it tends to be used too: as the things that are doing the revealing. It is in this third sense that we might say that empirical science is the study of general revelation.

As for the "light of nature," I understand it to refer to all the information we gain from reason and the senses, e.g., Robert Shaw states, "When we affirm that the being of God may be discovered by the light of nature, we mean, that the senses and the reasoning powers, which belong to the nature of man, are able to give him so much light as to manifest that there is a God." (Hence, the things learned by the "light of nature" is the term that covers the concept "dual revelation" proponents assign to their notion of "general revelation.") For a thread with many quotes concerning the light of nature, see here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/light-nature-21038/

Now whatever truth we learn is a part of "general revelation" in the third sense I gave and hence reveals God. So the content of the "light of nature" includes the content of "general revelation" in the first sense I gave, i.e., "the thing revealed," God. For example, Shaw continues, "By our senses we are acquainted with his works, and by his works our reason may be led to trace out that more excellent Being who made them." It seems that the "light of nature" focuses on the abilities of man, and so is distinct from the "works of creation and providence" that objectively reveal God, but as just explained, the "light of nature" is used to see that the "works of creation and providence" reveal God?

But anyway, to take things a step further (again, according to my understanding of these things), the knowledge obtained by the light of nature is whatever knowledge we attain by our reasoning and senses, i.e., our knowledge of things that is not obtained by special revelation. As with "general revelation," it seems (not sure on this) we may use the "light of nature" to refer to either the things by which we know or the things that we know. So the "light of nature" can be used not only of the abilities to gain knowledge, but to the knowledge gained by those abilities. When understood in the latter sense, we can say that empirical science "uncovers" the light of nature, albeit, provisionally and probabilistically and so only idealistically. (The true light of nature gives truth and so cannot change.)

On further reflection, it is possible I have stretched the term more than can be done, but I was using it in the sense of referring to whatever knowledge we obtain outside of special revelation. The knowledge obtained by "general revelation" is about God, not nature; empirical science studies nature (which is general revelation in one sense) and is supposed to give us knowledge of nature (which is either general revelation in no senses, or general revelation in the same sense as before of "the thing that reveals"); but the knowledge supposedly gained is by our reasoning and senses and is not special revelation, and so (as I thought) is the "light of nature." It is in these senses that they are distinct, the "light of nature" being a superset of "general revelation" when both terms refer to the knowledge obtained by them.

 

[GloriousBoaz]

From what I understand, they are overlapping but distinct concepts, and it partially depends on how they are defined.

I guess I was assuming a biblical definition, sorry should have been clearer; but yeah that's what I am curious about, are they Biblically the same, different, or somewhat differing?

Don't worry about it, just focus on school, we can leave this post go dead, I'm still confused on the subject but that's because its a bit of a deep subject that's gonna take me a while to flush out, I do want to start and get a good biblical grounding on it before establishing more of a philosophical definition.

 

[Afterthought]

(3') Psalm 19 specifically says that the "works of God's hands" or God's "handiwork" are revealed. Hence, God reveals not only Himself in nature but also the world and men, and the conclusions follow.

From here, as the beginnings of a response, since it only made an observation rather than argue for the conclusion drawn from it: "Although Diehl cites Berkouwer's criticism, his response is, in my estimate, inadequate. In support of his expansion of the concept of general revelation, the only Scripture reference Diehl appeals to is Psalm 19:1.... According to Diehl this demonstrates that nature reveals also the work of God's hands (i.e., of the things God has made). But surely this text merely states the divine authorship of the firmament? Is not the key word here not "handiwork" but "his handiwork"?"

 

[Afterthought]

Matthew Poole expresses a similar understanding: "Showeth his handywork; the excellency of the work discovers who was the author of it, that it did not come by chance, nor spring of itself, but was made by the Lord God Almighty." And it seems to me that's the best that can be done in response to those who wish to use this passage to support their theory.