Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 30:4 (Dec 1987)
Article: Evangelicalism And General Revelation: An Unfinished Agenda
Author: David W. Diehi

---

JETS 30:4 (December 1987) p. 441

Evangelicalism And General Revelation:
An Unfinished Agenda

David W. Diehi*

In spite of the growth of evangelicalism and the maturing of its institutions, evangelicals continue to be criticized for not coming to terms with science or modern learning. It is often believed that there is a weakness in their system of ideas that hinders them from becoming fully modern. One of evangelicalism’s most prominent thinkers has himself expressed criticism along these lines. Bernard Ramm charges that “evangelicals have not come to a systematic method of interacting with modern knowledge.”1

Partially in response to Ramm, the thesis of this paper is that an adequate method for relating theology and science can be found, at least implicitly, in the evangelical view of general and special revelation, but that the weakness evangelicals often have in relating theology and science stems especially from an underdevelopment in their doctrine of general revelation.

I. Some Presuppositions

Several presuppositions lie behind such a thesis. One is that revelation is the source of all true human knowledge. Another is that the traditional distinction between general and special revelation is Biblically and philosophically justified. A third presupposition is that there is a good measure of truth in Ramm’s indictment. This is not to deny that many evangelicals have integrated theology and science to a respectable degree, but only to admit that we evangelicals often do resort to ad hoc solutions that lack consistency and integrity with respect to both theology and science.2 The fourth presupposition is that Ramm’s suggestion about Karl Barth’s method as a paradigm for evangelicals is unacceptable.3 To be sure, Barth was admirable in his ability to appreciate modern learning while maintaining at least the bulk of historic Christianity. But my main problem with Barth is that his view of revelation does not provide a basis for the unity of all human knowledge. In his denial of general revelation he reduced all knowledge by revelation to theological knowledge and dichotomized theology and science, keeping them in two separate spheres where they cannot affect each other.

*David Diehi is professor of religion at the King’s College in Briarcliff Manor, New York.

JETS 30:4 (December 1987) p. 442

Many neo-orthodox theologians have followed Barth’s cue and have either downgraded general revelation or denied it altogether.4 Liberal theologians, of course, tend to go in the opposite directio...

visitor : : uid: ()