The
issue, then, is not whether it is possible that truth might be discovered by
human investigation of the natural and moral universe; rather, the issue is
whether truth thus discovered can be assigned to the category of general
revelation, and to prove that such material discovery can effect spiritual
change.
My contention is that by reason of the proper definition of the
theological category "general revelation" and by reason of the intrinsic and
divine integrity and authority that must be granted to any truth-claim that is
placed under that category, it is erroneous and misleading to assign to that
category humanly deduced or discovered facts and theories. The issue is larger
than appropriate taxonomy. In fact, to assign such humanly determined truths to
the category of general revelation introduces a twofold fallacy into the
argument when it is used as a rationale for the integrationist position.
First, there is the fallacy that might be termed falsely perceived validity. Revelation
is from God; thus it is by definition true and authoritative. To assign human
discoveries to the category of general revelation is to imbue them with an aura
of validity and consequent authority that they do not, indeed, they cannot
merit. Thus, to assign a concept to the category of general revelation when that
concept is in fact a theory concocted by a person is, in effect, to lend God’s
name to a person’s ideas. That is fallacious, no matter the intrinsic truth or
falsehood of the theory under consideration.
The second fallacy might be called crippled accountability. That is, once it is acknowledged that
these theories are revelatory in nature, the issue of challenging them becomes
moot. Much may be said about testing the ideas thus derived before acknowledging
them as part of that august body of truth that God has communicated in the
natural order of things, or about honoring the distinction in intrinsic
authority between general and special revelations, but to craft an argument for
integration based upon the equal merits and authority of general revelation and
special revelation is functionally to short-circuit such efforts and to deny
such distinctions. Very simply, if it is revelation, then God said it;
if God said it, then it is true; when God speaks truth, mankind’s responsibility
is not to test that truth but to obey it. It is self-contradictory to insist
that general revelation can include truths that must be "studied and examined
for their trustworthiness."
In summary, then, the integrationist rationale that arises
from the claim that perceived truths established by human research constitute a
subset of the category general revelation, and thus possess the authority and
dependability native to revelation, is flawed first of all in its misdefinition
of the term revelation. Inherent to the biblical concept of
revelation is the idea of nondiscoverability.
End quote.
No comments:
Post a Comment