What do you think about John Webster’s take on “revelation,” under the context of Scripture?:
Yet at the very same time that the doctrine was eviscerated in this way, the demands placed upon it increased to a point where they became insupportable. Perhaps the most significant symptom of this is the way in which Christian theological talk of revelation migrates to the beginning of the dogmatic corpus, and has to take on the job of furnishing the epistemological warrants for Christian claims. This absorption of revelation into foundations has two effects. First, it promotes the hypertrophy of revelation by making it responsible for providing the platform on which all subsequent Christian teaching is erected; and thereby, second, it exacerbates the isolation of talk of revelation from the material dogmatic considerations (Trinity, incarnation, Spirit, church) through its mislocation and its reassignment to undertake duties which it was not intended to perform. This latter aspect of the fate of Christian teaching about revelation had particularly damaging consequences for Christian theological thinking about the nature of Scripture. For alongside the hypertrophy of revelation and its migration into epistemology, there develops a parallel process whereby revelation and Scripture are strictly identified. As this happens, then Scripture’s role as the principium cognoscendi of Christian faith and theology comes to be thought of in such a way that Scripture precedes and warrants all other Christian doctrines as the formal principle from which those other doctrines are deduced. (John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, 12-13)
[hypertrophy=abnormal enlargement of a body part or organ: so in Webster’s usage, the concept of “revelation” is enlarged to the point that it is made bigger, and broadened beyond the scope that it was intended when it is supposed to bear the weight of functioning as the foundation for Christian epistemology]
Does this jive with your conception of Scripture? Do you see it as the foundation and epistemological ground wherein you believe that its primary purpose is to serve as the furniture store for furnishing your theological living room? Or do you see Scripture as a place where God brings you into dialogue with Him, as the place where you are included in the Triune speech; and thus a place where you are enveloped into the divine dialogue that inheres between the Father and the Son by the Holy Spirit? Or do you think that my questions create a false dichotomy either/or situation? Or?
Hey Bobby
Thanks for the good visit yesterday and⦠I ordered the book.
I must say I am always over my head at this blog (but it is the only blog I read) so I was excited to be able to jump in and point out what I thought to be a false dichotomy. However you beat me to it and pulled that card on yourself.
But let me give an example, that in my understanding, demonstrates that the bible β revelation β is IN epistemology and by definition means βto make fully knownβ (is BDAG still a reliable authority) but surely has salvation or reprobation as its telos.
In the beginningβ¦ the Israelites whom God delivered (saved by grace through faith) out of Egypt didnβt know anything about YHWH. So God used Moses to write the book of Genesis. Why? So we could fight about how old the earth its? Certainly not. The purpose of the book of Genesis is to make the Saving God β the Creator β known to the Israelites who had been saved by Him. But the purpose was broader than that. They also needed to knowβ¦ how to live before this Saving God once they got into the land so that they could enjoy his blessings and avoid his curses. (If I was an Israelite back then I would want to knowβ¦ what was in Dt 28ff.)
In the NT (off the top of my head), lets look at Romans 10.14ff. How will they call on him whom they have not believed. Neither the word knowledge or revelation is used but the point is clear enough: if a person does not know who Jesus is, he will never saved.
I would say that at a minimum, you have offered a false dichotomy, and at worst you have left a good portion of the intent of scripture/revelation on the operating room floor. But that is the problem with theology, the unavoidable problem β it is patently reactionary. The pendulum swings too far.
I also wanted to stick my neck out on the supposed hypertrophy of revelation. But I will be brief: (Ps 138.2) ββ¦you have exalted your word above all your name.β KJV
Rejoice!
And as our favorite Sibbes Prof says, βEnjoy the chase.β
Well, I sure am. At least today!!
W
Hey W,
I enjoyed the call too … of course!
I don’t think, though, that this represents a false dichotomy; as I said on the phone, what Webster is doing is placing scripture into the realm of salvation; with the idea that revelation is reconciliation. In this sense then, there is an “order of knowledge” taking place; one that has ontology preceding epistemology (just as Creator precedes creature).
So it’s not that Webster (or myself) would be saying that revelation doesn’t do any of the things you are asserting that it does; its just that the “order of knowing” is wrong when Scripture (just as creation) comes before Jesus.
Does that help clarify this any further?
Bobby! I have just been reading through posts on the blog…In particular I have been reading through the quite extensive interaction of one post in particular…;-) I have just starting working through The Deliverance of God by Douglas Campbell (Endorsed by Alan Torrance and N.T. Wright)….It has been a fascinating read so far….I am not very far into it, for it is quite the extensive read (app. 1000 pages)….What I have concluded, not just with what little I have read within this book so far, but for some time through study, is that the common way that Paul (especially Romans) has been read since Luther is very problematic…That is my conviction……The explanation is in the works…In addition to that…I am so just blessed by how the Lord is shaping me theologically and with how that is working out practically….I have never been so secure in my relationship with the Lord…His love is truly beyond me…The Lord has used your blog in a great way to help me….My EC convictions have just grown stronger….I wholeheartedly believe that theology is personal…Please don’t tone down..I love your boldness in the love of God! It inspires me greatly! Wrong theology has damaged so many within the body of Christ! Wrong theology needs to be confronted and dealt with in the boldness of the love of God! I believe that you do this because you love people, not just to get attention! My goal in all things is make Christ known! The Lord Jesus Christ is all in all! π
Secure in the Eternal Embrace of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
Chris Singer
Chris,
Great to hear from you! I am so encouraged to hear that your walk with the Lord is going so well; amen to that!! I appreciate your encouraging words to me, and I’m glad something I have offered up here at the blog[s] has been edifying to you! Yeah, my goal is not to just get attention, but to challenge and make fellow Christians aware of the great riches we have in Jesus; and how those riches are often mined by doing “work” in thinking both theologically and exegetically. I think we need to be encouraged to do more “work” in cultivating our walks with the Lord. I think many churches are failing to do this, and allowing the status quo or cultural norms to dictate how church is done (in general).
I won’t be toning down π .
Great to hear from you, Chris!!
I think I’d be firmly with you – Scripture isn’t a foundationalist-esque bedrock to build an unassailable fortress of epistemology on. That honestly irritates the snot out of me (I have friends who are firmly Gordon Clark-ian when it comes to Scripture). The notions of dialogue/speech (as well as side issues of speech-acts) presented in the studies of Scripture really do open up a lot more of…well, Scripture, as well as God…or perhaps I should say that it’s God doing the opening. At any rate, interesting thoughts.
As a side note, how did you come across these theologians you like so much? I’m pretty well versed in theological people/books/history, and so far with the exception of Barth/Bonhoeffer, these are all new names to me π
WH,
Glad to hear you like this! I am working at being a theologian myself, and so I guess it just comes with the territory (i.e. I went to school, and am working toward my PhD right now). I also have many many friends who are PhD students or PhDs already; it is through exposure with them that I have come across many of these theologians (but much of it is just reading and paying attention to footnotes and bibliographies).