What do you think?
Rate this book
General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues
Great book!
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1982
1 person is currently reading
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 29, 2023
Demarest is right about the importance of this topic. Is missions necessary? Is it necessary to hear the gospel in order to know God? Does natural theology posit a false God contrary to the one of Scripture (as was the case with the Nazis)?
I loved the historical overview of the topic. He’s right about how helpful that is to introduce new students to the conversation. I’m still not clear how the Augustinian-Reformed tradition differs from the Thomistic tradition. It seems like both affirm that God can be rationally known apart from special revelation. Indeed, it seems that both affirm God must be known on the basis of reason prior to the knowledge gained by faith. Both traditions also affirm that rational knowledge of God based on general revelation is not saving knowledge of God. Is it that the Thomists suggest we can come to this knowledge without divine aid?
One of the biggest divisions in theology is the importance one assigns to special revelation. In almost every tradition, the classical emphasis on special revelation as necessary and unique stands against the modern attempt to formulate a knowledge of God independent of special revelation. It seems like the way you form your doctrine of revelation almost determines everything else you will believe about God.
Great points about the importance of special revelation to know if God approves of the religious efforts of people in different religions. They may have genuine experiences of God, but they do not know what God’s perspective on those experiences is.
Demarest’s Evangelical Proposal: Post-fall, humans possess an intuitive sense of God. This accounts for the almost universal god-idea humans manifest, as well as their moral sense. This is supported by Romans 1 and 2, which state that all humans have a knowledge of God (revealed to them by God). This knowledge is both a direct knowledge of God (1:19-20) and a knowledge of God’s moral decrees (1:32 and 2:15-16). Since this knowledge is suppressed in unrighteousness, they are without excuse before God’s righteous judgement. However, it is also possible to infer truths by discursive reflection on nature. This is suggested by Rom. 1:20, Psalm 19:1-2, Job, Acts 14:17, and Acts 17. The ability of Paul to identify truth about God in the context of pagan descriptions of an idolatrous god (Acts 17:28) shows that there is a reminiscence of the knowledge of God among non-Christians. The Bible does not illustrate how a rational argument for God’s existence might be constructed, but it does not forbid it either. The suppression of all of this witness to the glory and existence of God leaves humanity guilty before him. To be saved is to enter a restored relationship with the true God. This can only occur through the knowledge given in special revelation. Demarest holds out hope that it is at least theoretically possible for a person to savingly know God without hearing the gospel, but is skeptical that will ever happen.
My reflections on the implication for apologetics: When engaging a non-Christian, it is safe to assume that person has an intuition of God. This is suppressed, but rarely denied as most people are theistic. Appeal to this innate knowledge. If a person does deny this knowledge outright, appeal to rational arguments that evidence the existence and character of God. This might also be suppressed, but it might also stir within the other person a reminiscence of the knowledge of their Maker. But make it clear that a true knowledge of God is not built on probabilistic arguments but a certain knowledge attained through faith as one experience a direct encounter with God the Spirit.
I loved the historical overview of the topic. He’s right about how helpful that is to introduce new students to the conversation. I’m still not clear how the Augustinian-Reformed tradition differs from the Thomistic tradition. It seems like both affirm that God can be rationally known apart from special revelation. Indeed, it seems that both affirm God must be known on the basis of reason prior to the knowledge gained by faith. Both traditions also affirm that rational knowledge of God based on general revelation is not saving knowledge of God. Is it that the Thomists suggest we can come to this knowledge without divine aid?
One of the biggest divisions in theology is the importance one assigns to special revelation. In almost every tradition, the classical emphasis on special revelation as necessary and unique stands against the modern attempt to formulate a knowledge of God independent of special revelation. It seems like the way you form your doctrine of revelation almost determines everything else you will believe about God.
Great points about the importance of special revelation to know if God approves of the religious efforts of people in different religions. They may have genuine experiences of God, but they do not know what God’s perspective on those experiences is.
Demarest’s Evangelical Proposal: Post-fall, humans possess an intuitive sense of God. This accounts for the almost universal god-idea humans manifest, as well as their moral sense. This is supported by Romans 1 and 2, which state that all humans have a knowledge of God (revealed to them by God). This knowledge is both a direct knowledge of God (1:19-20) and a knowledge of God’s moral decrees (1:32 and 2:15-16). Since this knowledge is suppressed in unrighteousness, they are without excuse before God’s righteous judgement. However, it is also possible to infer truths by discursive reflection on nature. This is suggested by Rom. 1:20, Psalm 19:1-2, Job, Acts 14:17, and Acts 17. The ability of Paul to identify truth about God in the context of pagan descriptions of an idolatrous god (Acts 17:28) shows that there is a reminiscence of the knowledge of God among non-Christians. The Bible does not illustrate how a rational argument for God’s existence might be constructed, but it does not forbid it either. The suppression of all of this witness to the glory and existence of God leaves humanity guilty before him. To be saved is to enter a restored relationship with the true God. This can only occur through the knowledge given in special revelation. Demarest holds out hope that it is at least theoretically possible for a person to savingly know God without hearing the gospel, but is skeptical that will ever happen.
My reflections on the implication for apologetics: When engaging a non-Christian, it is safe to assume that person has an intuition of God. This is suppressed, but rarely denied as most people are theistic. Appeal to this innate knowledge. If a person does deny this knowledge outright, appeal to rational arguments that evidence the existence and character of God. This might also be suppressed, but it might also stir within the other person a reminiscence of the knowledge of their Maker. But make it clear that a true knowledge of God is not built on probabilistic arguments but a certain knowledge attained through faith as one experience a direct encounter with God the Spirit.
June 20, 2016
A detailed and comprehensive overview of the doctrine of general and special revelation. Demarest takes us on a tour de force throughout history, and offers outstanding analysis of the representative viewpoints. Extremely thorough. And indispensable in understanding the foundation of theology: the doctrine of revelation. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews