could hardly be said to know Susan if I did not know many things about her. It is, of
course, frequently the case that our knowledge of other people is not explicitly
formulated and reflected on, but it is no less real for that. For example, I know that Susan
is a human being, that Susan is a woman, that Susan is a person with great energy and
commitment, and that Susan is a person who has shown courage in the face of a serious
illness, even though I may not have explicitly formulated those thoughts before now.
The same thing would appear to be true in the case of God. Knowing God in a personal
way is hardly reducible to knowing facts about God. However, I could hardly know God
at all if I knew nothing about him. Traditionally, Christians (and other theists) have
affirmed that God exists necessarily, is the Creator of all that exists other than himself,
and is supremely good and loving. Christians have gone beyond these theistic claims to
hold that God reveals himself as the Father of Jesus and as three-in-one. It is hard to see
how one could come to know God in a personal way without at the same time acquiring
at least some minimal knowledge about him. If we had no propositional knowledge of
God at all, then it would not even be possible to affirm the nonpropositional view of
end p.326
revelation, for to claim that God acts in history to reveal himself we must believe that
God is real and is enough like a person that we can properly conceive of him as acting,
and these are beliefs with propositional content.
I conclude, then, that we cannot coherently conceive of the nonpropositional view of
revelation simply as an alternative to the traditional propositional view, for if God truly
reveals himself so as to make it possible for humans to know him, then he must
inevitably reveal to them some truths about himself as well. We can, however, welcome
the nonpropositional view as making explicit and emphasizing themes that were
doubtless present in traditional accounts but perhaps not sufficiently highlighted, namely,
that the primary object of revelation is God himself, not propositions about God, and the
primary purpose of revelation is making possible a relationship with God. Knowing God
is certainly not reducible simply to knowing truths about God, and the nonpropositional
view puts this important truth in the center of the picture rather than on the periphery.
That the themes emphasized by the nonpropositional account were at least implicit in the
traditional account can be seen by noticing that, according to the traditional view, the
propositions revealed by God were not to be believed simply because they were true, but
because God had revealed them (Aquinas 1975, 77). One of the ways trust in a person
manifests itself is in a willingness to believe what the person says, and thus personal trust
is at least implicit in belief in what God reveals for Aquinas. The person of faith believes
the propositions she does because of her trust in God; the beliefs both stem from and
contribute to a personal relationship with God.
Revelation as Inspired, Infallible, and Inerrant
What about the critical problems with the Bible that partially inspired the
nonpropositional account? If the Bible is itself revelation, then must it be seen as inspired