1. What is the Neo-Orthodox understanding of scripture and the nature of revelation?

2. Why is this rejected by Reformed orthodoxy?

3. What, in Reformed orthodoxy, is the relationship between Christ as the essential Word, and the revealed or spoken word? (And which is the cognitive foundation of theology?)

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

1. What is the Neo-Orthodox understanding of scripture and the nature of revelation?

The Scripture "becomes" the Word of God, not that it "is" the Word of God.

2. Why is this rejected by Reformed orthodoxy?

(1.) Because it removes all propositional objectivity from the rule of faith and subjectivises the revelation of God. (2.) It is inherently contradictory, because "the existential event of the Word" is purportedly the propositional content of the Bible and is not made to depend on "the existential event of the Word" for its validity.

3. What, in Reformed orthodoxy, is the relationship between Christ as the essential Word, and the revealed or spoken word? (And which is the cognitive foundation of theology?)

The Scripture is the formal word while Christ is the material Word. In some controversies the orthodox appeal to the priority of the material Word. E.g., to prove that the Word existed before the church and the church is founded on the Word; therefore the Word and not the church is the infallible rule of faith.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Good answers, Rev. Winzer; very succinct. Would you, then, say that it's more appropriate to refer to Christ as the revealer rather than the revelation? That is, would you say that while he is the principle focus of redemptive revelation, it is nevertheless not proper to refer to him as the revelation itself? Or is there something off in that statement?

I think it is what is poured into their understanding of Christ as Revelation. They want to de-personalize and de-historicize Christ's work. They want to move God's Immanence in the world away from events. They want to turn Adam into a principle and, consequently, Christ into a principle. The bedrock of faith is that God is with us and His revelation consists of His might acts of redemption in human history. We are under judgment for actual imputed Sin of a man and are redeemed by the actual, historical Person of Christ.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Leaving room for qualifications, I think such a denial would undercut Scripture authority, because the Scriptures, and indeed Christ Himself, reveals that Jesus is the revelation of the Father -- "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" "in the face of Jesus Christ." I also wonder what ectypal theology would look like if Christ Himself is not the revelation of God. If the revelation were something other than Christ Himself then Christ as Mediator would be revealing something other than Himself. What could this be? Lastly, I would be concerned about the depersonalising tendency of a non-Christological revelation. Perhaps it might be said that Christ would still be a part of the revelation He reveals. That would still leave some parts requiring something other than a personal faith to appropriate them.

(And which is the cognitive foundation of theology?)

This definitely should have been answered as it is fundamental. Jesus Christ revealed in the Scriptures is the cognitive foundation of theology, as 1 John 1:1-4 makes abundantly clear.

Great answers, Rev. Winzer. I like the way Muller summarizes your above points:

Christ is, therefore, both the Revelation itself -- the fulfillment of the Word of salvation -- and the perfect Revealer, whose incarnation served not only to accomplish the work of salvation but also manifest definitively the will of God. The epistemological point made by the orthodox is that Christ as Revealer can alone present the truth of God because he is one with God, the essential Word of the Father. ("Christ -- The Revelation or Revealer," JETS 26/3, 314)

As he says in a much later article:

It was never argued by any of the older Reformed theologians that direct encounter with Christ somehow mediated knowledge of God: their assumption was that the knowledge of God as Redeemer, grounded in and focused on Christ, was to be found in Scripture. Scripture, not Christ, was understood as the source or principium of the knowledge of God. Nor did this older Reformed theology even pretend that all of its doctrines -- such as the divine attributes, providence, or reprobation -- needed somehow to be understood in and through the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. ("A Note on 'Christocentricism'", WTJ 68, 257)

Which, I believe probably would agree with your conclusions on the matter, though expressed in slightly different language? I am certainly open to different expressions of the same substance. I will admit to being slightly uncomfortable with the language of Christ as the principium cognoscendi, but probably only account of its Neo-Orthodox overtones and use.

Election-reprobation in Christ is slightly different because Barth supposes Christ as revelation is the elect and reprobate of God. There is an added component to the idea at that point. I think the Barthian position can be correctly characterised as election through (dia) rather than election in (en) Christ. The reformed orthodox definitely see election and reprobation as eternal, unconditional, unchangeable, and individual, wereas the neo-orthodox have made it universal by substituting the man Christ for each and every man, and that constitutes a fundamental variance.

Muller

It was never argued by any of the older Reformed theologians that direct encounter with Christ somehow mediated knowledge of God: their assumption was that the knowledge of God as Redeemer, grounded in and focused on Christ, was to be found in Scripture. Scripture, not Christ, was understood as the source or principium of the knowledge of God. Nor did this older Reformed theology even pretend that all of its doctrines -- such as the divine attributes, providence, or reprobation -- needed somehow to be understood in and through the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth. ("A Note on 'Christocentricism'", WTJ 68, 257)

Rev. Winzer

Jesus Christ revealed in the Scriptures is the cognitive foundation of theology, as 1 John 1:1-4 makes abundantly clear.

Upon further reflection (I abase myself in dust and ashes) I have determined, in consultation with a spiritual advisor (not that I believe in the medieval practice of a confessor - and not that I am opposed to the middle ages in theory) to edit my post to clarify my previously misleading question.

Do the neo-orthodox make the historical Christ (Christ in his humiliation) the principle of knowledge, whereas Rev. Winzer would think of Christ the Eternal Word as the principle of knowledge?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

Patience must dwell with Love, for Love and Sorrow
Have pitched their tent together here:
Love all alone will build a house tomorrow,
And sorrow not be near. -Christina Rossetti

Doesn't Muller identify Christ as the principium essendi and Scripture as the principium cognoscendi? Does that take care of any tension, because Christ reveals Himself, but we come to that knowledge in Scripture?

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

Yes.