The Two Books

Filed under: Apologetics, Theology — Barry Carey at 10:41 am on Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Christianity holds that God took the initiative and chose to reveal Himself to humanity. This self-disclosure of God is the only way that we could know anything about Him. He is infinite; humans are finite. To know God requires that he reveal Himself to us.

Traditional Christianity has held that God has revealed himself to humanity in two fundamentally different ways. The first is through general revelation or God revealing himself through His created and natural world. This revelation is general in the sense that it is available to everyone at all times in all places. The second is through special revelation - special in the sense that it was given at special times, to special people, and in special places. Usually, God’s special revelation to man is thought to be through Scipture and the life of Jesus Christ on earth.

This teaching of two types of revelation has sometimes been called the “Two Books” doctrine, that is, God has “authored” two books to reveal himself to man - The figurative book of nature and the literal book of the Bible. A reformed confession of 1561 explains this concept further:

We know him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God… Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

A scriptural text supporting the concept of general and special revelation is found in Psalm 19:1-4, 7-11 (ESV):

The heavens declare the glory of God,
and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech,
and night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words,
whose voice is not heard.
Their measuring line goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world…

The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure,
making wise the simple;
the precepts of the LORD are right,
rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure,
enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the LORD is clean,
enduring forever;
the rules of the LORD are true,
and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold,
even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey
and drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them is your servant warned;
in keeping them there is great reward.

More on the two books… Next post.

8 Comments »

Comment by Sheldon

January 31, 2007 @ 3:07 pm

It appears these two types of so-called revelation are wholly inadequate in establishing the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

I can think of an infinite number of reasons. A vast universe, yet relatively empty of intelligent life except for earth. While the natural world is indeed magnificent, it also contains its fair share of nastiness. For example the many diseases that inflict human kind that are living organisms, allegedly created by a loving God. These disproportionately affect the poor and the very young. The opportunism of evolutionary processes explains the existence of these organisms much better.

Why would a loving god create a world with plate tectonics that can potentially cause the south Asian Tsunami that killed 100s of thousands of people?

Then there is the revelation of the bible. Allegedly the Bible is supposed to be a guide for morality. However, the Bible does not condemn slavery in either testament. When the crime of rape is committed, the Bible is concerned with the compensation of the victim’s father. Jesus in more than one of the gospels instructs his potential followers to hate their parents and other relatives. I have heard various explanations for these passages which raises the question of if God intended to reveal and communicate with us, then why would he not communicate more clearly?

Sorry, these two types of revelation are hardly adequate to establish God’s existence.
Sheldon

Comment by Tim M.

January 31, 2007 @ 8:30 pm

Sheldon,

If you want to evaluate the Christian idea of God, you must deal with the Christian idea of God, and not simply abstract theism.

The universe is vast and (as far as we know) mostly empty of intelligent life. And the Bible teaches that all things were created through and for Christ. So…What’s your point? How does that conflict with expectations of Christianity? Why should there be any life off of Earth, within a Christian worldview?

In your discussion of evils within the natural world, you give no consideration to the Fall, sin, and judgment–fundamentally important and highly relevant aspects of Christian worldview.

You cannot claim to be evaluating natural revelation and the Judeo-Christian God if you give no consideration to what Judeo-Christians say about him.

Comment by PurpleBaron

February 1, 2007 @ 1:49 am

Sheldon,

I wont comment on what Tim M has covered. He has covered it well.

You say that Jesus says his followers must hate his parents. Yet you neglect to say the context. Jesus is saying that the allegience he demands is so great, so important, that all other relationships seem like hate. That is the standard Jesus expect. Sadly many christians do not live up to this standard.

Regarding slavery: you and the bible speak to different forms of slavery. Slavery in our mind is terrible. It involves holding people against their will etc. But slavery in the sciptures was far different. Slaves were often considered part of the family. Slaves had many rights. Paul speaks to the slaves and urges them to serve their masters as if they were serving Jesus. For many references about slavery and how masters ought to treat their slaves well (see how it is a different type of slavery to ours) see these references: Eph 6:5, Eph 6:9, Col 4:1 and others.

Before you tarnish christianity “as endorsing slavery”, please do some further reading.

Purple Baron.

Comment by Sheldon

February 1, 2007 @ 7:55 pm

First, a clarification. I did not say that Christains or Christianity endorses slavery. I said the Bible does not unequivecally condemn it. Which gets back to the issue of the Bible’s ambiguity. In the days when we had slavery in this country, pro-slavery Christians used the Bible to justify it, while abolitionists used the Bible to condemn it.

With a background in anthropology, I am quite aware of the different contexts of slavery in different cultures and times, including that of the Bible. It may be true in certain situations and in Bible times, slaves are treated decently. But it seems that the Purple Baron embraces a kind of moral relativism. Whether slaves are treated decently or not is one issue. The other is if it is immoral or not to own a person as property. I believe it is and was immoral to own a person as property, regardless of time or culture of societies throughout history. Most people today, including most Christians I suspect believe as I do, thanks to moral evolution in this matter. Yet at least some Christians have difficulty resolving the contradiction between the presumed morality of the Bible and their actual morality.

I will return tommorow to address Jim’s comments on the vast universe, and the problem of evil and the fall. My first post was to only open up the discussion.
Sheldon

Pingback by withallyourmind.net » What’s in the “Two Books”?

February 2, 2007 @ 12:47 pm

[…] In my last post I wrote briefly of the “two books” doctrine - that is that God has “authored” two books, nature and scripture, by which he has and still does reveal himself to mankind. These two books are sometimes described as two types of revelation, general and specific. What can we learn from each of these two books? […]

Comment by Aaron Snell

February 5, 2007 @ 2:23 am

Sheldon,

I believe it is and was immoral to own a person as property, regardless of time or culture of societies throughout history.

Why? How do you ground this?

Comment by Sheldon

February 5, 2007 @ 4:26 pm

Aaron,
Why, and how do I ground this? I ground it in the fact that a person’s life, their body, is their own. To deprive a person of their basic autonomy and freedom is immoral. To defend that statement we might ask, on what grounds does one have to deny one’s basic freedom?

I think it is the Christian who must answer the question you put forth. I do assume you think slavery is immoral. Don’t you?

It seems to me that one cannot “ground it” in the Bible. And it seems Christians are caught in the dilemna of being moral relativists such as they might say “slavery was acceptable because God said it was, but now it is not.” Why is slavery morally acceptable, or not?

Plato of course dealt with this problem. Does an alleged God choose to judge something bad because it is? Or is what is bad simply a matter of God’s choosing?

Comment by Aaron Snell

February 5, 2007 @ 5:13 pm

Sheldon,
Perhaps I didn’t make my question clear enough, and if so I apologize, but you never really answered it. You say, “To deprive a person of their basic autonomy and freedom is immoral.” This only pushes the question back without really answering it. I asked why you believe it is immoral (wrong) to own a person as property. In response to the above, I would ask, why is it immoral to deprive a person of their basic autonomy and freedom, particularly if you hold that this is wrong “regardless of time or culture of societies throughout history?” How does the brute fact that “a person’s life, their body, is their own” in and of itself mean that I SHOULD do anything? What I’m trying to find out from you is where you get this notion of “wrong.”

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>