follower of this movement summarizes what is often termed the “nonpropositional” view
of revelation as follows: “What God reveals is not propositions or information—what
God reveals is God. In revelation we do not receive a doctrine or esoteric piece of
informationIn revelation we are brought into a living relationship with the person of
God” (Hordern 1959, 61–62).
This nonpropositional view of revelation must be understood in part as an indirect
response to historical and critical analysis of the Bible during the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. The liberal theology that developed during this period basically
shared the traditional understanding of revelation as propositional in character, but as a
result of critical study concluded that the Bible could not be seen as a divinely inspired,
infallible book, as many theologians had thought. Rather, the Bible must be seen as a
record of the evolving religious consciousness of the Jewish people, a witness to
increasingly profound religious experiences, rather than a set of writings directly inspired
by God. On such a view the truths of the Bible are truths that contemporary humans must
verify through their own religious experiences and reflection rather than believe because
they have been revealed by God. Such a view seems to undermine the authority of special
revelation and erode the distinction between such revelation and general revelation.
The neo-orthodox theologians, under the influence of such giants as Karl Barth and Emil
Brunner, attempted to restore the importance of special revelation by making a distinction
between the revelatory historical events and the Bible itself, which is seen as a human
witness to those events. Those special events are not merely part of generic human
religious experience, but represent acts by which God disclosed himself to humans. The
God who acted in this way in biblical history is still a God who acts and who discloses
himself to the believer who reads the Bible or hears the Word of God preached. The
Bible is thus both a witness to revelation, a record of revelation, and a means by which
revelation continues to occur, as the Spirit of God illumines the hearts of those who read
and listen with openness. In this way, the nonpropositional account of revelation attempts
to maintain the primacy of special revelation while being open to the critical scholarly
study of the Bible that sees it as a very human book.
The nonpropositional view of revelation is very attractive; it contains powerful insights
that must be part of a viable account of revelation. However, it is open to powerful
objections if it is understood as a replacement for the traditional view. We may note first
of all that if one is prepared to accept the notion of God acting in special ways of history,
there is no a priori reason to doubt the possibility of a propositional revelation, for
communicating is itself a type of act that God could perform. Second, we should note that
much of the Bible does not consist of history at all, but doctrinal teachings, poetry of
various kinds, proverbs, and other literary forms, and much of this material is surely
propositional in character. However, these are not the most serious problems.
The major difficulty with the nonpropositional view of revelation, understood as a rival to
the traditional view, is that it is not possible to make a clear distinction between a God
who reveals propositions and a God who reveals himself. It is true that a personal relation
with God is far more than a mere knowledge of propositions, and that knowing another
person cannot be reduced to knowing facts about that person. It is, however, impossible
to conceive of a case of personal knowledge that does not involve propositional
knowledge as well. One cannot come to know another person without coming to know
some things about that person at the same time. I know a woman named Susan, but I
nextflipdebug5
(nextflipdebug5)
#1