Notes on Prolegomena: Revelation, Scripture, and Theological Language
General Revelation vs. Special Revelation
Overview: The final class in a series on prolegomena to theology; focus on what to consider before engaging in theological description and predication of God.
Presuppositions: Any discussion of God and creation starts from theological claims (Webster’s approach), especially the distinction of God from creatures.
Purpose: Prepare for talking about the essence and attributes of God, the gospel of the Trinity, and how to know what we are talking about and why.
Why General Revelation Cannot Fully Unveil the Trinity
Wednesday’s distinction: General revelation vs. special revelation.
Limitation of general revelation: It cannot disclose the Triune life due to the indivisibility of the Trinity.
Core idea: In God, knowledge, will, power, wisdom, goodness are one; the Father’s knowledge is the Son’s and the Spirit’s; the same divine power/will/knowledge operates in creation.
If there were a real distinction among the persons in those attributes, it would imply three gods, not one.
Therefore, external acts seen in the world show only the one divine power and do not distinguish the persons.
Salvific clarity requires special revelation (God opening His heart in His words in Scripture) because the Incarnation and other salvific events are not repeats observable in nature.
Two reasons for needing special revelation:
1) External acts of God (creation, providence) are inseparably the product of all three persons; you cannot discern triune personal relatedness from them alone.
2) Key salvific acts (Incarnation, cross, resurrection, ascension) are one-off events; they require God’s own testimony to be known.Scripture does more than disclose these events; it clarifies general revelation and adds precision about God as First Cause, Creator, distinct from creation, with revelation about his nature and plan.
Summary: General Revelation provides a starting framework (e.g., there is a First Cause) but requires Scripture for fuller understanding and for salvific content.
Scripture as Clarifying and Testifying
Cowan quote (Calvin): Scripture is like spectacles that clarifies our otherwise confused knowledge of God, aiding us to read the true God more clearly.
Calvin’s insight: Sin and finitude cause “bleary-eyed” vision; Scripture helps us see more clearly, but Scripture itself is not merely a nonverbal show of God—it is God speaking to us through Scripture.
Scriptural function: Besides common proofs, Scripture presents a direct and certain mark whereby God is to be recognized.
Scripture’s scope: It does not only speak about the Trinity or the Incarnation; it also clarifies what can be known from general revelation and expands on it (e.g., it names the First Cause, clarifies God’s role as Creator, and distinguishes Creator from creature).
Calvin’s correction regarding “blindness”: The effects of sin imply diminished sight, not complete blindness; spectacles clarify but require some prior sight to be meaningful.
Self-Authentication and Authority of Scripture in Protestant Reformed Theology
Scripture’s intrinsic authority: Rooted in its relation to God; the Word is of highest authority because it is God’s speech.
Self-authenticating authority: Scripture is its own best advocate; as God’s speech, it bears its own warrant.
Other witnesses to Scripture’s authority exist, but they are secondary; the most decisive is God’s voice in Scripture.
Examples of secondary witnesses:
Ancient origins of Scripture: text integrity across deep time supports reliability.
Catholicity: Scripture’s acceptance across diverse Christian contexts supports its credibility.
Unity/consistency: A single, coherent message about God and salvation across different authors and eras.
The church’s relation to Scripture: The church is a creature of the Word, tied to Scripture and to the Son; Scripture’s authority is foundational for Protestant Reformed theology.
Language About God: Predication and the Necessity of Analogy
Problem: God’s nature is qualitatively different from creatures; we use creaturely language to speak about God, which must be handled carefully.
What language about God conveys: Some statements are metaphorical or poetic; others are literal but must be understood analogically rather than univocally.
Distinction of “form” and knowledge: We cannot arrive at a perfect form of God in our minds; there is no adequate creaturely form to capture the infinite essence.
Consequence for language: Words like “wise,” “good,” or “father” acquire their initial creaturely meaning but function in Scripture with a divine, analogical sense.
Divine vs creature predication: There is both similarity and difference in how words refer to God and to creatures because of the Creator–creature distinction.
Analogy vs metaphor:
Metaphor (non-literal predication) uses figurative speech (e.g., “God is a fortress”) but must be stripped of creaturely elements (stones, walls) to talk meaningfully about God.
Literal predication about God is not univocal; it cannot mean the exact same sense as creaturely use.
Analogy preserves a fundamental similarity while signaling essential differences.
Univocal predication: One voice; same meaning used for different things (e.g., heat of the sun vs heat from a radiator). Examples illustrate that the underlying property (heat) is what is being predicated, not the exact physical substance.
Equivocal predication: One word used with different, unrelated meanings (e.g., bat the animal vs bat the implement; bank of a river vs bank as a financial institution; Apple the company vs an apple fruit).
Analogical predication (middle ground): Words are used in a way that is similar but not identical; there is genuine similarity but non-identity in what is predicated.
Examples of analogical predication in theology:
Love: God’s love vs a dog’s love vs a spouse’s love; divine love is constant while human love can wax and wane.
Power: God’s omnipotence vs human power; God’s power is not contingent on conditions like sleep or health and is wholly identical to God’s being.
Goodness/Knowledge/Justice: Human goodness/knowledge/justice are creaturely, while God is perfectly good, all-knowing, and just in a divine, immutable sense.
The Creator–creature distinction undergirds analogical language: We use creaturely terms to speak of God, but their application to God is governed by an intrinsic divine-to-creature analogy rather than identity.
Practical implications: Our language about God must acknowledge the limit of creaturely categories; theology relies on analogy to say something true about God without collapsing Him into a creature.
Concrete Examples of Analogical Predication in Doctrine
Love: God’s love (eternally constant) vs human love (mutable) – analogous but not identical.
Power: God’s omnipotence vs human capacity to act – analogous but not identical; God’s power is independent of creaturely conditions.
Goodness: God’s goodness vs everyday goodness (e.g., a good meal) – analogical use; God’s goodness is perfect and unchanging, unlike creaturely goodness which can vary.
Wisdom: God’s wisdom as the ultimate, divine wisdom vs human wisdom; human wisdom grows and changes, divine wisdom is necessary and unchanging.
Fatherhood: God as Father vs human fatherhood; God’s fatherhood is primordially divine and not a mere imitation of human fatherhood.
The language of theological predicates (e.g., “Only wise God”) highlights the unique, divine sense of terms that in creatures would have a different scope.
Implications for Theological Method and Practice
Language must honor the Creator–creature distinction; we must avoid univocal extension of human terms to God.
Scripture’s dual role: It reveals salvific truths (Incarnation, cross, resurrection) and clarifies general revelation; it does not replace or negate natural knowledge but completes it.
The view defended here supports a strong central authority for Scripture within the church and a careful use of human testimony as secondary to God’s Word.
The epistemic posture recommended: begin with the divine Word as the primary source, using general revelation as a starting point and Scripture as the ultimate guide to understanding God’s inner life and plan.
Connections to Broader Theological Context
Relationship to Trinity: The inseparability of the divine operations in the world explains why general revelation cannot disclose the Triune life.
Relation to creation: God’s acts in creation reveal a unity of divine operation; Scripture augments that by naming and detailing God’s identity as Creator and First Cause.
Relevance to modern theology: The language of analogy provides a robust approach to speaking about God that respects metaphysical distinctions while preserving meaningful discourse.
Key Terms and Concepts (Glossary)
General Revelation: Knowledge of God available through creation, providence, and nature, not sufficient to disclose the internal life of the Trinity or salvific truths.
Special Revelation: God’s self-disclosure through particular acts and words (e.g., Scripture, incarnation) necessary for salvation and for revealing the inner life of God.
Trinity/Trinitarian life: The Father, Son, and Spirit are one God; their indivisible operations reveal the unity of God without differentiating the essence.
Inseparability of divine operations: God’s knowledge, will, power, wisdom, and goodness are one in God and cannot be separated into distinct operations by the different Persons in a way that would imply polytheism.
First Cause: The Creator described in Scripture as the uncaused cause of all things.
Special testimony: God’s speaking in Scripture and in salvific events (incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection).
Self-authenticating Scripture: The theological claim that Scripture validates itself by its divine source and authority, independently of human endorsement.
Analogy of Predication: A semantic relationship where terms refer to God and creatures with similarity but not identity; the predicate is true of God in a way that is analogous to its truth about creatures.
Univocal Predication: A predicate used with the same sense for different things (same meaning, e.g., heat as warmth).
Equivocal Predication: A predicate used with different senses for different things (ambiguity of meaning).
Metaphor vs. Analogy: Metaphor uses figurative language to convey truth in a non-literal way; analogy preserves a meaningful similarity while avoiding identity with creaturely terms.
Quick recap of the two central claims
General revelation cannot disclose the Triune life because of the indivisible unity of God’s operations; special revelation is required for a reliable understanding of the inner life and salvific events.
Language about God must be understood analogically due to the Creator–creature distinction; univocal and equivocal uses are insufficient or misleading for true theological discourse. Scripture’s authority is grounded in its divine source and is complemented by human witness and church-use, but ultimately it remains the primary authority for knowledge of God.
Final note
If you have questions, bring them to class or discussion; the goal is to clarify how we talk about God in a way that honors who God is and how He has revealed Himself.