Thoughts on this Bavinck quote?

[Northern Crofter]

I never thought of this before so it struck me as unique: "The distinction between what has come to be called general and special revelation does not begin until the call of Abraham; before that the two intermingle, and so far have become the property of all peoples and nations." (The Philosophy of Revelation, p.188). Thoughts or criticisms?

 

[Before]

I guess it would depend on which Enoch is referred to here in Jude...

14. It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,

 

[Deleted member 9611]

Strongly disagree. Special revelation was given in the garden prior to the fall.

 

[jwithnell]

G.Vos connects special revelation to major occurrences in redemptive history. That would fairly put its beginning in the Garden of Eden. The question then becomes if revelation occurs prior to the fall (in the giving of the covenant of works) or after in the giving of the protoevangelium (since at that point man needs a redeemer). I'll have to dig into my notes to see if the professor addresses this question.

 

[py3ak]

Apprehending Bavinck's point depends on grasping that general and special are not synonymous with natural and supernatural, though we often use these terms to refer to the same content.

A revelation is general because of its universal address, even if it is not communicated through creation but through some other divine interposition; a revelation is special if it relates to humans as sinful. Note what Berkhof says, Introductory Volume to Systematic Theology (p.128): "The distinction between general and special revelation runs to a certain degree parallel to the preceding one [between natural and supernatural], though it is not entirely the same. It contemplates the extent and purpose of the revelation rather than its origin and mode."

 

[No Other Name]

Strongly disagree. Special revelation was given in the garden prior to the fall.

Bavinck did not claim otherwise though.

 

[No Other Name]

It reminds me of Gerstner writing that creation not only speaks of its Creator but also indicates the universe is structured for the benefit of man yet simultaneously is broken as if nature *wanted* to benefit man but is not able to be *perfectly* beneficial to man.

All these truths can be discerned completely naturally.

Anyway as to the OP, from my memory of Bavinck, Ruben is correct in Bavinck's understanding that God's specific addresses to Adam, Noah are universal (in as much as Adam is our head) and the call of Abram out of Ur and being the father of many nations was not a universal promise for all.

As always, my memory may be faulty of both Bavinck and Gerstner. If someone replied quoting either author proving I was not quite correct, I would not be surprised in the least.

 

[RamistThomist]

I know what he is getting at, but I disagree. God was talking to Adam, and God's verbal speech is special revelation. I do agree with Bavinck that special revelation takes a new turn in redemptive history with the call of Abraham.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It reminds me of Gerstner writing that creation not only speaks of its Creator but also indicates the universe is structured for the benefit of man yet simultaneously is broken as if nature *wanted* to benefit man but is not able to be *perfectly* beneficial to man.

All these truths can be discerned completely naturally.

Anyway as to the OP, from my memory of Bavinck, Ruben is correct in Bavinck's understanding that God's specific addresses to Adam, Noah are universal (in as much as Adam is our head) and the call of Abram out of Ur and being the father of many nations was not a universal promise for all.

As always, my memory may be faulty of both Bavinck and Gerstner. If someone replied quoting either author proving I was not quite correct, I would not be surprised in the least.

I think this is a fair take on Bavinck - to be more fair he is in the middle of a section demonstrating that all of history points to a single religious origin and that Abram being called out of Ur is the beginning of "a number of elements in the history and religion of Israel which occur nowhere else" (p.191). Bavinck is drawing from Augustine and seems to equate "general revelation" with "primitive revelation" and/or "common grace" (pp.170-171):



I probably should have provided the whole sentence in my OP: "The distinction between what has come to be called general and special revelation does not begin until the call of Abraham; before that the two intermingle, and so far have become the property of all peoples and nations." (p.188). He clarifies this further later: "For although Abraham left Babylonia and was sent to dwell in a strange land, the God who manifested himself to him, and later to Moses and to Israel, is no new, strange God, but the God of old, the creator of heaven and earth, the Lord of all things, who had been originally known to all men, and had still preserved the knowledge and worship of himself in many, in more or less pure form." (p.191). So maybe the issue is the terminology - I don't think he is really talking about general and special revelation as much as perhaps what should be termed "original revelation" and "specific revelation."