Hi all.

I wanted to bring up something that i was challenged about a while back and hopefully i could get some help with, or maybe just fuel some discussion. This is the idea of progressive revelation.

These are not my thoughts, nor a result of my study, but i am merely reitterating parts of a paper i was given written by a former moore college lecturer a while back. I am saying this so that you won’t confuse me with a person of great intellect and original thought.

As you read the bible it becomes clear that some of the beliefs held by the writers of early Old Testament Scripture have been abandoned or replaced as the scriptures unfold. 1 example is the view of life after death. For most of the period of when the Old Testament was being written, people held view that there was no life after death. to die was to become almost non existent. The place of death was a cold place for the semi concious or the uncocious. See Psalm 6 and Ecclesiastes 9:5-10.
The idea of life after death, let alone a full bodied after life, was only emerging at the end of the OT period and the intertestamal period.

so the scriptures seem to be a dynamic and evloving body of literature.
He writes:

The books of the Bible appear to have gone through a process of editing and re-editing as Jewish and then Christian communities of faith have appropriated and re-appropriated earlier expressions of faith and life. New situations, such as the exile into Babylon, occasioned new readings of the past, new understandings. Even within the New Testament there is development as the implications of Christ’s life, death and resurrection are worked out, for example, with respect to law keeping or the place of Gentiles in the new communities of faith. Arguably, this process of working through implications continues beyond the Scriptures. The fulfilment that happens in Christ does not resolve every question. Nor does it obliterate the on-going impact of culturally conditioned ideas and beliefs.

He then argues that a principled openness to well-founded contemporary knowledge is important to an understanding and appropriation of Scripture, and says

If it is the case that God accommodated himself to the time and culture bound understandings of Biblical writers, and that there is development of thought and theology within Scripture, then there are likely to be instances where new discoveries, new knowledge will impact upon our reading and appropriation of the Biblical material. To not be open to well-founded contemporary knowledge is to run the risk of defending the indefensible and of unreasonable and unsustainable resistance to advances in understanding.

Later he says In a simple way therefore we cannot say “Because the Bible Says X, God Says X, and so X is true”. the bible says things which are not true.

Basically (so this thread isn’t an essay) some further conclusions are that our contemporary knowledge has to regulate the way we read scriptures, and what God’s word for us is a little more complicated to try and work out.
One example being women. He args that the role and rights of women progressed from the old testament through to Jesus and further regulated by Paul, but now with the contemporary knowledge we have of women and their abilities we can take it even further and abolish all forms of patriarchy.

What do people think of progressive theology?
What do you see as its flaws? It’s dangers?

sorry this was long. If you would like to read the whole paper send me an email and i’ll give it to you.

Blessings

Geoff

Hi Geoff

The bible does show that revelation in Scripture was progressive, but I’m wary of the claim that contemporary knowledge overrides the bible.

How is this different from saying “Yes I know the bible says this, but I reckon that is a better proposition”?

What controls are on this? Why bother with the bible at all if we are the ultimate authority?

It would be interesting to read this paper. I am guessing this stuff is not taught at Moore College and that this former lecturer would remain that way, teaching such things.

Re: Progressive Revelation

[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]As you read the bible it becomes clear that some of the beliefs held by the writers of early Old Testament Scripture have been abandoned or replaced as the scriptures unfold. 1 example is the view of life after death. For most of the period of when the Old Testament was being written, people held view that there was no life after death. to die was to become almost non existent. The place of death was a cold place for the semi concious or the uncocious. See Psalm 6 and Ecclesiastes 9:5-10.
The idea of life after death, let alone a full bodied after life, was only emerging at the end of the OT period and the intertestamal period.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of “progressive revelation,” after all, you cannot know as much about God from reading only Genesis 1 as you can from reading the entire Bible.

The issue here is whether later revelation contradicts earlier revelation (perhaps, on this view, the notion of “revelation” itself is incorrect and maybe “reflection” is what is meant). I don’t think that the example of life after death offers strong support to this position: in toto the OT is unclear about what happens after death. Psalm 6 is not very clear about it, and quoting Eccl 9:5-10 is a bit like quoting Psalm 14:1 “There is no God” and saying it proves that there has been progression from atheism to theism between the OT and the NT!

I think the quotes you provide reflect some amount of confusion. I don’t have a problem with the idea that some things the Bible says were written into specific cultural contexts and may not apply in precisely the same way in out context. OTOH, I think that this consideration does not empty the words of meaning, it rather means we have to work harder to ascertain the correct meaning.

David wrote:

The bible does show that revelation in Scripture was progressive, but I’m wary of the claim that contemporary knowledge overrides the bible.

Me too. Could it lead to someone saying “People don’t rise from the dead, contemporary knowledge tells us that, so Jesus therefore didn’t rise from the dead”?

And thank you Martin for your comments and help. I hope it doesn’t come across that these are my thoughts, or that i agree with them. The quotes of scripture were not my interpretations, they were the ones given in the paper. The reason i put up this thread is because it really challenged me in what i think of the bible, and the person that gave it to me was a former moore college lecturer who holds to these views, and it was completely new to me and not the way i’ve ever understood how to interpret the bible. So i wanted to know what others thought about it.

But i would like to keep on discussing it. And i apologise if it was confusing!

but i still do have a lot of questions concerning intepretation of scripture and progressive revelation.

Eg. Some say Gen 1-11 (including Peter Jensen...i think) is myth, or not meant to be intepreted as factual. So Adam and Eve and noah most likely would not have existed, neither did the flood (once again, not my thoughts, the ones given to me!). We “know” this because of contemporary knowledge or because of enlightened views of interpreting the scriptures. But what about when new Testament writers and Jesus refer to Adam and Noah as factual people who lived?? but we now “know” that they didnt?

If someone was to ask me did the flood happen or did Adam and Eve exist, i would say “yes” i think. But i do have a lot of questions.

Someone once compared me getting this paper from an intellectual, to a medical student working on his PHD and the Professor comes in and tells me his just found out there’s no such thing as atoms...meanwhile i’m still working out what’s in the beaker....

What i mean I still don’t know how to defend my worldview properly, but i was given something that shook the foundations of what i believe, and i wanted to share what rocked my foundations, get some feedback and stuff.

Thank you

Geoff

Geoff, I was a bit gung-ho in my response. Sorry.

Daniel Wallace has an article in which he asks if the writings of the New Testament show some progression. The article is titled New Testament Eschatology in the light of progressive revelation . Well worth reading

However, I wonder about our understanding of the New Testament being dependent upon our knowing when each part was written. We could get it wrong if we thought Revelation was written pre-AD 70 for instance, when it fact if was written in 96 AD.

We need to ask ourselves if some NT writings show knowledge of others. Do they build on what the first writer said? I think we can see Paul clarifying and adding to what he said previously in 2 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians.

Re: Progressive Revelation

[quote author="Martin (Enkidu) Shields"]There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of “progressive revelation,” after all, you cannot know as much about God from reading only Genesis 1 as you can from reading the entire Bible.

The issue here is whether later revelation contradicts earlier revelation (perhaps, on this view, the notion of “revelation” itself is incorrect and maybe “reflection” is what is meant). I don’t think that the example of life after death offers strong support to this position: in toto the OT is unclear about what happens after death. Psalm 6 is not very clear about it, and quoting Eccl 9:5-10 is a bit like quoting Psalm 14:1 “There is no God” and saying it proves that there has been progression from atheism to theism between the OT and the NT!

I think the quotes you provide reflect some amount of confusion. I don’t have a problem with the idea that some things the Bible says were written into specific cultural contexts and may not apply in precisely the same way in out context. OTOH, I think that this consideration does not empty the words of meaning, it rather means we have to work harder to ascertain the correct meaning.

I think I share your views. Remembering that ours is an unchanging eternal God, I think that any absolute truth cannot change (wouldn’t be too absolute if it could). The issue is then determining what each part of the Bible exposes about some real absolutely truth of God. God can progressively reveal parts of one truth, but he cannot reveal contradicting timeless truths.

I think that any absolute truth cannot change (wouldn’t be too absolute if it could). The issue is then determining what each part of the Bible exposes about some real absolutely truth of God. God can progressively reveal parts of one truth, but he cannot reveal contradicting timeless truths.

Does this mean then that if biblical writers in the OT believed something to be true, it must be true? If one is to hold the view (as many evangelicals do) that Gen 1-11 is historico-myth and Adam, Eve, Noah did no exist, but think it is okay for New Testament writers to believe that they existed, are they saying there is “contradicting timeless truths”? Does this make sense?

I agree with your comments, truth cannot change, but are there parts within scripture that are not true, that do not necessarrily reveal truth about God?

Does this make sense? I’m not sure if i am.

Geoff

Although Adam does not get a lot of coverage in the NT, quite a bit of it is dependant on him being a real person who actually lived and sinned and threw us into the predicament we find ourselves in.

If he is a myth, we need a different gospel from the one Paul preached, don’t you think?

[quote author="Geoff Chambers"]Does this mean then that if biblical writers in the OT believed something to be true, it must be true? If one is to hold the view (as many evangelicals do) that Gen 1-11 is historico-myth and Adam, Eve, Noah did no exist, but think it is okay for New Testament writers to believe that they existed, are they saying there is “contradicting timeless truths”? Does this make sense?

What they themselves believed does not matter much. They weren’t the timeless unchanging God after all..
As to those specific issues, I’m not sure. I think what Genesis says happened actually did happen. There’s no contradiction in the NT for me ;)

I agree with your comments, truth cannot change, but are there parts within scripture that are not true, that do not necessarrily reveal truth about God?

Does this make sense? I’m not sure if i am.

Geoff

As above, one phrase of Psalm 14:1 is not true, but only if taken out of context. If you read the whole verse, it is true (that it’s foolish to say there is no God).
Are there parts that don’t reveal truth about God? I don’t think anyone would say that Nehemiah 3:9 reveals much about God all by itself, but read within the context of the whole of Nehemiah it would.
Are there big sections, that when read properly within its original context, are untrue? No.