The Objective Character of Biblical Revelation.

1  John 1:1-5        2 Peter 1:20-21       1 Timothy 6:3-5

 In modern times, men have attempted to devise systems which attempted to make Christianity more personal and, seemingly, alive. (Article III addresses this.)

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.


-- A Christian Danish philosopher by the name of Soren Kierkegaard who feared Christianity was too dry and cerebral, so he devised a system where faith was divorced from reason in order to make that faith more personally meaningful. (Fideism.) see Isaiah 1:18, Matthew 22:36-37, 1 Peter 3:15


-- A 20th Century theologian Karl Barth picked up on this idea and ran with it. He divided the concept of ‘Biblical Revelation’ into two categories; Event Revelation and Propositional Revelation


-- Barth asserted that the Bible is not itself revelation, but becomes revelation in a special experiential way at a particular time in a believer’s life. This has roots in existentialism.


-- Roughly stated existentialism asserts that reality is that which pertains to the observer. (1 Cor. 14:36)


-- The Correspondence Theory of Truth asserts that the real is the true, regardless of our observation.


-- This existential influence on Christian thinking has left us with a faith without objective foundation. That it is the relationship that is what is important, never mind the propositions.


--The problem with fideism is that can only be an internally coherent system. The concept of God-assigned ‘foundationalism’ is acid to this concept of ‘personal faith.’ Jesus claimed the Scripture objectively proclaimed His coming. (John 5:39) But, the Pharisees had their own ideas.


-- Existentialism is subjectivity. With such a system there would no way to actually know if anything is actually real. Is this uncertainty acceptable? Christian existentialism is alive and well in the modern church. God’s Word is our anchor, our foundation, a gift from Almighty God who has objectively revealed Himself to us. All we need to know God and His will is in the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:12-17)     

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yet another one of many ‘reasons to believe!’ (Romans 1:18-21;  2:6-8,14-15;  3:19-26)


Far from being contradictory; the differences between the Gospel accounts are clearly complementa-ry Luke adds details to Matthew’s account, such as Christ’s birth taking place in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. Differences between the Gospels not only demonstrate that they did not rely on one another but also add weight to their authenticity In the words of historian Dr. Paul Barnett, "The differences in the narratives indicate that not only were Matthew and Luke isolated from each other when they wrote, but also that the sources on which they depended were quite separate. Yet from these underlying source strands we have detailed agreement about where Jesus was born, when, to which par-ents, and the miraculous circumstances of his conception."  Hank Hanegraaff, ‘The Search for Jesus Hoax’,  Christian Research Journal  Vol. 23 Number 2. P.18.

Return to Home