Calvinism and Revelation

I just want to share exchanges of ideas in a Facebook forum about Calvinism and revelation. I removed other inputs that I consider irrelevant, and included only three participants, which I used initials to hide their names: RP, NS, and RC.

---0---0---0---

RP: If you have time, please study. 

Let's discover whether CALVINISM is a PERNICIOUS or a sound doctrine.

The texts of the Bible are symbols that altogether constitute DIVINE REVELATION. If Calvinism is a sound doctrine, it will certainly fit within as one of the subordinate themes of Divine Revelation. Let's check this out. No debate, let's just share knowledge or opinion and let the readers determine which knowledge or opinion is more reasonable.

Let's start at the proper starting point: WHAT IS DIVINE REVELATION?

RP2: The post above provides an opportunity for Calvinists to put within a proper Biblical framework their Calvinism - within the framework and context of Divine Revelation. If they fail to do it, that means Calvinism is an incoherent doctrine, indeterminate, or merely a construct of reason without definable value.

Please think. Do not simply believe like the cults or the ISIS (laughing!).

NS: RP, your reasoning is illogical. A failure of a "Calvinist" to put within a proper perspective.....if they fail means Calvinism is an incoherent doctrine..???? Again, please read the books I suggested to you...rightly dividing the word of truth....it is your reasoning that is incoherent RP...sorry to be brutally blunt...

RP: NS, with all due respect, you had been wildly commenting on my posts/threads from the standpoint of emotion, fanaticism and on the level of a personal diatribe. One thing more, you can never convince this discussant and our readers that just because you claim you have scanned too many a book that you need not reasonably argue anymore but simply be considered a pundit in declaring which doctrine is sound or not. That is not the norm in a marketplace of IDEAS Sir. 

Now PROVE or DEMONSTRATE your claim that my preceding statement was incoherent: "The post above provides an opportunity for Calvinists to put within a proper Biblical framework their Calvinism doctrine --- within the framework and context of Divine Revelation. If they fail to do it, that means Calvinism is an incoherent doctrine, indeterminate, or merely a construct of reason without definable value."

I truly doubt if you can do it. I even doubt that, despite the many books you have read and despite the many "divine personalities" you claim you know, you can COHERENTLY articulate in measurable terms "what is divine revelation", and how you can fit Calvinism in it. Let us see now if you truly know how to ... "rightly divide the word of truth".

RC: Personally, this thread offers a good start to discuss Calvinism. However, on the onset, let us first clarify the scope of Calvinism. Usually, the term is used synonymously with Reformed theology, and I directly heard a Ph. D. candidate who confidently claims that Paul Tillich and Karl Barth also adhere to reformed theology. The difficulty is that, they have different concepts about revelation. It is better to limit discussion about revelation from the perspective of classical Reformed; I mean John Calvin, Benjamin Warfield, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, and Cornelius Van Til. And I also want to add that the subject of revelation is not only confined Catholicism or Protestantism. The subject is critical in the existing intellectual battle.

RC2: So from Classical Reformed theology, there are three ways to answer the question "What is divine revelation?" - concise, exhaustive, and in between the two. As a concise answer, I think the Institutes of Christian Religion is the safest. For John Calvin, there are two types of the knowledge of God, Creator and Redeemer, and these two are related to the two ways God revealed himself to man, creation and redemption. This kind of concept of revelation was followed by Benjamin Warfield, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, and Cornelius Van Til. Berkhof's Systematic Theology offers us the simplest explanation of these two kinds of revelation. In the case of Cornelius Van Til, his contribution, "Nature and Scripture" in 1946 Westminster Symposium is the answer I consider in-between. You can read this in the book, "The Infallible Word". However, if you are searching for an exhaustive answer, I think the most qualified is Herman Bavinck in his lecture, "Philosophy of Revelation" in Princeton during the academic year 1908-1909. He explained revelation in relation to philosophy, nature, history, religion, Christianity, religious experience, culture, and the future.

NS: RC, thanks for quoting those Reformed champions. I will pray as the Lord uses you in His ministry here for Reformed explanations ....erstwhile you read Cornelius Van Til , renowned for Apologetics...Thanks!

RC: NS, I believe that Van Til's synthesis of the Dutch reformed and American reformed needs to be heard as represented by Abraham Kuyper and Benjamin Warfield.

NS: Thanks for standing up for Calvinism...I just react went people state a sweeping statement without checking the two sides of the fences...though..I should exercise utter humility and prudence as this is what the Reformed Doctrines are partly about...a Sovereign God in the midst of His people whom he foreloved before time..thanks

RP: Gentlemen, my post above certainly invites a dialogue of various views on the subject Divine Revelation, while at the same time taking a swipe at Calvinism which I personally perceive to be fallacious. My point is, for Calvinism to have a Biblical/theological sense, it must have both a framework and an ontological context. A discussion on the subject Divine Revelation could perhaps provide us a wider scope of reference, considering that the gist of Calvinism is "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative". Tillich, Fromm, Hegel, Marx are a few of the existentialist philosophers whose views could contribute to our better understanding of human estrangement as one of the primary Biblical themes of Divine Revelation. 

Certainly we have our respective synthesis of the various presuppositions of Philosophers we come across in our respective studies, let's play Bingo of them in this forum (laughing!). 

Let's enjoy as we learn and learn as we enjoy!

What is Divine Revelation gentlemen? What are the primary themes of the Bible?

RC: NS, as for me, my interest changed. There are far bigger issues that the Reformed community must face than its soteriological differences from Arminianism. I remember during our early years in the seminary, we always debated. It's just shameful to rrealize later that our perspective of Calvinism was too narrow.

RC2: Though I do not understand what RP means by "gist", as for me, I understand the word as the essence of things that you want to describe. If this is the meaning of the term, I think saying that the gist of Calvinism is "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative" is a misrepresentation. For even the entire TULIP, if you compare Calvinism to an iceberg, but you only focus on soteriology, you are just looking at the peak of an iceberg. Discussing Calvinism is difficult because the meanings attached to it are different. Personally, even though I do not like a school of thought, I am still cautious about misrepresentation for the 9th commandment is serious about the use of tongue, and maligning a person or a school of though that in the first place you know nothing about.

So if you want to know the "gist" of Calvinism, I think it is better to look at it not in a sectarian, confessional, and denominational perspectives, but scientifically, which includes the historical, philosophical, and political elements. In this sense you will see Calvinism as a life-system, and the Stone Lectures of Abraham Kuyper in Princeton on 1898 will help us see this. In those lectures, Kuyper explained the scientific meaning of Calvinism as a life-system in relation to religion, politics, science, art, and the future.

RP: (laughing!) Perhaps RC, you haven't seen yet that the scope of Calvinism in terms of Biblical themes and Divine Revelation is too narrow. One of my proofs is NS personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue. And second, I find Calvinism as a distortion of the thoughts of many texts of the Scriptures thus it is pernicious to the mind of those who are not trained in doing proper exegesis.

RP2: RC, you define a thing according to its nature, properties and by means of causes. The essential property of Calvinism is definitely its position with regard to human spiritual estrangement (total depravity) vis-a-vis God's sovereignty and prerogative. All other themes and assertions of the calvinism belief system are subordinate to what I have just said. You can prove me otherwise on that one.

Now, as you wish to take our understanding of Calvinism on the praxis level, I may as well argue that Calvinism obscures the believers understanding of the purpose of human existence - or the individual "life-system" if I may use your terms. Not only that, calvinism makes a mumbo-jumbo of the important themes of the Bible, like GRACE, ELECTION, REDEMPTION, SALVATION, REGENERATION and the ultimate eternal FATE of both the children of God and the unbelievers. 

Going back to my post, let's discuss the topic Divine Revelation. Let's see how Divine Revelation is broken down into primary themes in the Bible. What are the Primary Themes of the Bible that constitute Divine Revelation RC or NS? Is Calvinism, as John Calvin sees it, one of the revelatory themes of the texts of the Bible?

Our readers may be interested to know this.

NS: RP, I believe that the reason I perceived Calvinism is because God opened my eyes. Among many of us who encountered Calvinism in 1982, only few of us embraced it not because we are good. As for me, to argue in this forum is close to uselessness. A Calvinist may answer but it is like "answering a fool according to his folly!" Attitude for me is very important. You may answer , defend, contend, and even sound like an angel ( with all the highfalutin and pompous words ) but if your attitude borders on braggadacio - that to me borders on being a busybody. Pardon me this is my opinion. I know it can be a forum to contend for the truth that was once revealed to the saints. RC here quotes men like Kuyper, Bavinck, Berkhof, BB Warfield, Van Til, etc..and to add John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, AW Pink, AA Hodge, Dagg, and even CH Spurgeon. Please read them and may the good Lord remove the scales from your eyes and you might see the beauty of God's sovereignty and be like the Bereans! Thanks!

RP: (laughing!) Again that's just another irrelevant personal attack NS. It's like you are simply following the same tack the elders of the Roman Catholic church have used when Martin Luther criticized the religious conventions of his time. It's your bragging of this and that; that is odious. (laughing!). The issue in the post NS is not about you or me, but about Divine Revelation and how should we fit within it the Calvinism belief system. Are you admitting that while you confidently believe that Calvinism is a sound doctrine, you are not sure whether it is one of the revelatory themes of the Bible? Let's be honest in our exchanges if TRUTH is truly what you wanted to come out in the end. If you can't understand some of my terms, you may look for its meaning in the net instead of feeling offended.

TRUTH hurts, but let TRUTH be truth.

RC: I see your point there NS, but before I leave this thread, I just want to ask RP in relation to his last post.

"You define a thing RC according to its nature, properties and by means of causes. The essential property of Calvinism RC is definitely its position with regard to human spiritual estrangement (total depravity) vis-a-vis God's sovereignty and prerogative. All other themes and assertions of the Calvinism belief system are subordinate to what I have just said. You can prove me otherwise on that one."

Can you cite at least one major representative of Calvinist school of thought that asserts this? Or is this just your interpretation of "Calvinism"?

"Now, as you wish to take our understanding of Calvinism on the praxis level, I may as well argue that Calvinism obscures the believers understanding of the purpose of human existence - or the individual 'life-system' if I may use your terms. . . "

One can say anything about a school of thought, but understanding it first is the basic rule. Building a straw man does not advance theological discussion. You have to cite passages from major proponents of Calvinism, and argue from there. And by the way, Calvinism as a "life-system" are Kuyper's terms, not mine. 

"Going back to my post, let's discuss the topic Divine Revelation. Let's see how Divine Revelation is broken down into primary themes in the Bible. What are the Primary Themes of the Bible that constitute Divine Revelation RC or NS?"

How can you proceed to the breaking down of primary themes of the Bible if in the first place the meaning of the word "revelation" is not clearly defined?

RP: RC, I already made a categorical assertion in the thread with regard to the "gist" of the Calvinism belief system, whether the classical one or the neo one. The gist of Calvinism is all over the net if in case you still wish to know them well. It is now for you to demonstrate that my assertion is erroneous.

Saying that I am building a straw man argument RC is to imply that the readers (and my fellow discussants in this thread) are ignorant of the issues that I have raised in the post except me - that's the implication of it sir. (laughing!). You have not even presented any formal argument yet pertaining to the subject divine revelation and the relevance of Calvinism to it, and neither have I refuted any of your non-existent view yet, it is perhaps because Calvinism does not have any ontological reference at all. We have no formal exchanges of views but all personal attacks, so a straw man argument could not possibly emerge yet.

Now if you are asking me to say what I mean for the term "revelation", in the Biblical context, I would say that revelation or divine revelations are the ACTS and the WILL OF GOD as recorded or disclosed in the Bible. 

So, did God perform an ACT to predestine the human race unto either salvation or damnation? Nothing of that sort is disclosed in the Bible. Was it the WILL of the Creator to create man and cause him to fall into sin because He could just save him anyway, and then consign some to hell and others to heaven? Nothing of that sort is disclosed in the Bible.

What are the PRIMARY ACTS of God that constitute divine revelation RCl?

RC: I am glad RP that you presented your understanding of revelation. In the first place, the reason why I commented on your thread is that I believe that revelation is a very important subject that has implications beyond the confines of the church into larger society. So if this is the direction of the thread, I think this is beneficial for the readers.

Now, as a response to your last post: 

"RC, I already made a categorical assertion in the thread with regard to the 'gist' of the Calvinism belief system, whether the classical one or the neo one. The gist of Calvinism is all over the net if in case you still wish to know them well. It is now for you to demonstrate that my assertion is erroneous."

So you are referring to this as the "gist" of Calvinism: "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative". And your basis "is all over the net . . . ." Ok, if that's your understanding of Calvinism, I respect that. However, from my framework, I see that as a small portion of Calvinism. Perhaps, we may say that that is part of soteriology. How about prolegomena, theology proper, anthropology, Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology? Your "gist" can be justified if you are referring to Calvinistic soeteriology, not Calvinism itself. And even these different branches of theology cannot be qualified as  the whole of Calvinism. It may be taken from a sectarian, confessional, and denominational point of view, but it is so limited for it remains confined within the ecclesiastical boundary. This is the reason I mentioned the scientific concept of Calvinism as life-system, which includes the historical, philosophical, and political elements. This is the standard understanding of Calvinism, at least during Kuyper's time. But if you still insist in your understanding of Calvinism that even these scientific elements are subordinate to your "gist", I can do nothing about it. 

"Saying that I am building a straw man argument RC is to imply that the readers (and my fellow discussants in this thread) are ignorant of the issues that I have raised in the post except me - that's the implication of it Sir."

Of course, you are free to make your own conclusion from my statement, but I don't want to put it that way. I see it as a straw man because none of the major proponents of Calvinism claim that the gist that you mentioned is the essence of Calvinism. 

"(laughing!). You have not even presented any formal argument yet pertaining to the subject divine revelation and the relevance of Calvinism to it, and neither have I refuted any of your non-existent view yet, it is perhaps because Calvinism does not have any ontological reference at all."

You are asking for a definition of divine revelation. I just simply mentioned the limitation that to my mind is necessary in defining the term for to include Tillich and Barth's concept of revelation, I think requires long period of time and serious study. So you are right that I did not present any formal argument for that is not my intention. Concerning the absence of Calvinism's ontological reference, I think if the answer of Cornelius Van Til is not sufficient for you, I don't know if you can still find a Calvinist response that will satisfy you. 

"Now if you are asking me to say what I mean for the term 'revelation', in the Biblical context, I would say that revelation or divine revelations are the ACTS and the WILL OF GOD as recorded or disclosed in the Bible."

I thank you for this definition. This provides the right start for the discussion. However, in the history of the meaning of revelation, various definitions have emerged throughout history. I just wonder if you have a room for natural revelation in your theological system. If my reading is right, the relationship between natural revelation and special revelation is crucial in theological debate about revelation.

RP: RC, I hope you don't feign ignorance of Calvinism just so you can scrutinize the extent of my knowledge of it, it being a belief system based largely on John Calvin's teachings and practices, with its main points more aptly summed up by the "TULIP". Now, for brevity in this forum, I need not give a commentary with respect to how Calvinism interrelates with other branches of systematic theologies that you have mentioned above, nor cite advocates of any of its variants, thus I simply pointed out its "gist" or central theme: "man's estrangement from God (total depravity)" vis-a-vis "God's sovereignty and prerogative".

Now, it's fine with me if you prove me wrong if I insist that the "gist" of Calvinism is about God as predicated of His sovereignty and prerogative vis-a-vis man as predicated of his supposed 'total depravity'. You can present your version of its gist sir if you wish to. I may as well say that a flawed theological theory like Calvinism could never have a definable scientific value or sustainable scientific application.

Now pertaining to the subject "divine revelation", I'm glad that you've shown keen interest of it RC. I have floated this subject matter in this forum several times but nobody seems to understand or realize that the foundations of LOGIC, SCIENCES and TECHNOLOGIES are the ACTS and the WILL of God as recorded or disclosed both in the Bible and in the REAL ORDER OF THINGS (natural revelation).

The LOGOS is no less the externality of the ACTS and the WILL of the MIND of God, which in turn, from the human vantage point, these acts and will of God are altogether called Divine Revelation. With all due respect, what I gave is not just a DEFINITION of Divine Revelation sir but, firstly, its precise MEANING as expressed in the Bible and at the same time its GENETIC DEFINITION.

All the ACTS and the WILL of God, as disclosed in the Bible, can be classified into three PRIMARY THEMES. These themes constitute revelations that are already MEASURABLE. And if only Calvinists are aware of them, they would certainly realize that CALVINISM is a deviant theme. Not only that, it likewise obscures the said primary themes. 

You ask the Calvinists what are the primary themes of the Bible (that serve as the immediate subordinate species/themes of the genus divine revelation) and certainly they will reply with extensive rhetorics that further expose their ignorance of them. Theirs is zeal not of knowledge, or sheer fanaticism, not a pursuit for truth.

I hope this time we can open a new thread on Divine Revelation where discussants would discuss the subject matter more intelligently and with all honesty and sincerity. Certainly I have some groundbreaking nuggets of knowledge that I wish to share only to those who show interest.

RC: I thank you RP for your response. Perhaps, this is my last post on this thread. I just want to say "Thank you!" for raising the question for I was able to consolidate information that has something to say about revelation. If I have written anything that offends you, I give you my apology.

And now my response to your last post:

"You can present your version of its gist sir if you wish to. I may as well say that a flawed theological theory like Calvinism could never have a definable scientific value or sustainable scientific application."

"You ask the Calvinists what are the primary themes of the Bible (that serve as the immediate subordinate species/themes of the genus divine revelation) and certainly they will reply with extensive rhetorics that further expose their ignorance of them. Theirs is zeal not of knowledge, or sheer fanaticism, not a pursuit for truth."

Before giving the "gist" and the core themes that all Calvinists share, I would like to respond first to your rejection of the scientific significance of Calvinism. To my mind, such an assertion does not only betray the lack of knowledge of the political and philosophical contributions of Calvinism in the development of Western civilization, but also a denial of the history of Reformation. Never forget that the Protestants who were called "Huguenots" in France, "Beggars" in the Netherlands, "Puritans" in the Great Britain, and "Pilgrim Fathers" in North America were all Calvinistic in their origin. I just wonder if apart from you, you can also cite other authority figures that share the same assertion. In claiming Calvinism in its scientific sense, Kuyper mentioned at least four authorities, which of course, personally, I am not familiar with these authors and their writings. The first three are from the Netherlands, and the last one is an American. 

The first authority is a certain Dr. Robert Fruin who declares that "Calvinism came into the Netherlands consisting of a logical system of divinity, of a democratic Church-order of its own, impelled by a severely moral sense, and as enthusiastic for the moral as for the religious reformation of mankind." 

The next one is a Dutch historian, Reinier Cornelis Bakhuizen Van Den Brink. He writes: "Calvinism is the highest form of development reached by the religious and political principle in the 16th century." 

The third authority is Conrad Busken Huet. He acknowledges "that Calvinism has liberated Switzerland, the Netherlands, and England, and in the Pilgrim Fathers has provided the impulse to the prosperity of the United States."

And the last authority is an American historian, George Bancroft. He too acknowledged that Calvinism "has a theory of ontology, of ethics, of social happiness, and of human liberty, all derived from God."

Based on the testimonies of these four authorities plus Abraham Kuyper himself, let the readers decide whether the use of Calvinism in its scientific sense is really justified or not.

Returning to the "gist" of Calvinism, at least it is fair if your claim is similar to Kuyper's: "Thanks to this work of God in the heart, the persuasion that the whole of a man's life is to be lived as in the Divine Presence has become the fundamental thought of Calvinism. By this decisive idea, or rather by this mighty fact, it has allowed itself to be controlled in every department of its entire domain. It is from this mother-thought that the all-embracing life system of Calvinism sprang" (Lecture on Calvinism, pp. 25-26). Expanding on this mother-thought, John Richard de Witt identifies at least 7 core belief shared by all who adhere to Calvinism or the Reformed faith, which are as follows:

1. High view of the Bible. "Only the Scripture, the total Scripture". In the Scripture we hear Christ speaking with all authority in all aspects of life. Not even the church could interfere in this absolute authority of Christ. The Scripture’s authority does not rest on any human institution, neither human reasoning nor any human documents. Its authority rests on its own testimony. 

2. God’s sovereignty in creation, providence, government of the world and human history. 

3. Power of God's grace. 

4. New life in Christ. The Christian life is a holistic kind of life. It is opposed to any dualistic tendency or a neo-platonic kind of life. It does not condole mysticism, asceticism, and legalism on the one hand and it opposes licentiousness on the other hand. It respects both body and soul, honors the present existence here on earth and expects eagerly for the life to come. 

5. Inseparability of law and gospel. 

6. Relationship between the kingdom of God and the world. Cultural mandate plays a central role in this relationship, not only because Calvinists are interested in humanities and the culture of the world, but have realized that God has given them a task to transform the kingdoms of this world. Personal piety that results to social impotence and calloused conscience to the sufferings of this world is alien to the mindset of a Calvinist. 

7. High view of preaching and its relationship to life and ministry of the Church. Preaching is perceived as faithful exposition of the word, practical, proclamation, and characterized with freedom and confidence. 

Now among these seven core beliefs shared by all Calvinists, is there any one of them that you reject?

"Now pertaining to the subject divine revelation', I'm glad that you've shown keen interest of it RCl. I have floated this subject matter in this forum several times but nobody seems to understand or realize that the foundations of LOGIC, SCIENCES and TECHNOLOGIES are the ACTS and the WILL of God as recorded or disclosed both in the Bible and in the REAL ORDER OF THINGS (natural revelation)."

I already mentioned the reason why I am interested on this subject of divine revelation. It is also good that you provided not only the "definition", but also the "precise meaning" and its "genetic definition". However, I assume that you will accept that the debate about revelation did not start on this thread here in FPF. It has a long history. To my knowledge, there are at least 9 answers given to this question, and to add your answer, we have now at least 10. I am just curious to know if your answer is really original or just a repetition of one of those 9 answers as we closely examine each of them. Among those 9 answers, one of them is the Calvinistic response. I will repeat myself again that in answering this question from the perspective of Calvinism, there are at least 3 ways to do it: small, medium, large or concise, fair, and extensive.

The overview of Calvin's Institutes and Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology provide the shortest response. Cornelius Van Til's contribution to the Westminster Symposium, "Nature and Scripture" is fair and judicious. But if you want an indepth and extensive treatment of the subject, go for Herman Bavinck's "Philosophy of Revelation". In this thread, all I can give is the shortest response. Van Til's and Bavinck's treatment of revelation requires a considerable period of time. I already mentioned the overview of Calvin's Institutes, let me mentioned the 9 different answers based on Berkhof's Systematic Theology and my paper on revelation during my graduate studies:

1. Scholastics - They believe that natural revelation provides the data to construct a natural theology by way of human logic. However, natural revelation does not supply "mysteries" like the Trinity, the incarnation, and redemption. This is where supernatural revelation is needed. But the data provided by supernatural revelation cannot be rationally demonstrated. It must be accepted by faith.

2. Thomas Aquinas. Of course, Thomas Aquinas belongs to Scholasticism. However, his answer diverted on one point from the majority of the scholastics. For Aquinas, he agrees that the "mysteries" of supernatural revelation do not require any logical demonstration. However, he does not see any conflict between natural and supernatural revelation. 

3. Rationalists. The rationalists exalted natural revelation "at the expense of supernatural revelation." They refused to submit to the voice of authority coming from supernatural revelation. Some "maintained that natural revelation was sufficient to teach men all necessary truths." Others might consider the authority of supernatural revelation, but it content must be logically demonstrated. 

4. Deist, an offshoot of rationalism. "Deism in some of its forms denied, not only the necessity, but also the possibility and reality of supernatural revelation."

5. Schleiermarchian. No more "distinction between natural and supernatural revelation." "The term 'revelation' is still retained, but is reserved as a designation of the deeper spiritual insight of man." He does not believe in the existence of a "fixed body of revealed truth, accepted on authority, that stands opposed to the truths of reason."

6. Karl Barth. He rejected the Schleiermarchian view of revelation. Barth denies the existence of natural revelation. He also considers it "a mistake to regard the Bible as God’s revelation in any other than a secondary sense." Instead, "It is a witness to, and a token of, God’s revelation." Barth does not believe that humanity is "in possession of any infallible revelation of God." Mankind has knowledge of revelation "only through the testimony of fallible witnesses."

Barth is difficult to understand. Even a great thinker like Gresham Machen did not attempt to respond to Barth's theology. He was convinced that Cornelius Van Til was more equipped than him. And so Barth's view of revelation is not easy to digest. In Church Dogmatics, he discussed revelation under the doctrine of the word of God. So for him, the word of God is a bigger category than revelation. He understands the word of God in at least three ways: revelation, the Bible, and proclamation of the church.

From a broader perspective, revelation for Barth has Trinitarian foundation, Christological aspect, and Pneumatological aspect. In terms of details, Barth's concept of revelation is explained in various ways: 

"Revelation is always God in action, God speaking, bringing something entirely new to man, something of which he could have no previous knowledge, and which becomes a real revelation only for him who accepts the object of revelation by a God-given faith."

"Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, and only he who knows Jesus Christ knows anything about revelation at all."

"Revelation is an act of grace, by which man becomes conscious of his sinful condition, but also of God’s free, unmerited, and forgiving condescension in Jesus Christ."

"Barth even calls it the reconciliation."

"The revelation of God was given once for all in Jesus Christ: not in His historical appearance, but in the super historical in which the powers of the eternal world become evident, such as His incarnation and His death and resurrection."

The revelation of God is continuous "in the sense that God continues to speak to individual sinners, in the existential moment of their lives, through the revelation in Christ, mediated by the Bible and by preaching."

7. Paul Tillich. Tillichian concept of revelation is also difficult. I have no intention to give it here. I consider it sufficient to mention that there are at least 6 things to elaborate to understand Paul Tillich's concept of revelation. 

8. Post-modernist - I assume that you all know the concepts of post-modernism about revelation. ? ? ?

9. Calvinist. As represented by Benjamin Warfield, revelation is understood in two ways: general and special. In history, they are expressed in other terms: natural and supernatural, revelatio realis and revelatio verbalis, immediate and mediate revelation. Through time, Warfield's terms gained wide acceptance among Calvinists or reformed thinkers. As for the summary of Calvinist's concept of revelation, note the following:

They "rejected the dualism of the Scholastics and aimed at a synthesis of God’s twofold revelation." 

"They did not believe in the ability of human reason to construct a scientific system of theology on the basis of natural revelation pure and simple." And this is because of two reasons: 

1. "As a result of the entrance of sin into the world, the handwriting of God in nature is greatly obscured, and is in some of the most important matters rather dim and illegible. 

2. "Man is stricken with spiritual blindness, and is thus deprived of the ability to read aright what God had originally plainly written in the works of creation."

To remedy this situation, God did two things: 

1. "In His supernatural revelation He republished the truths of natural revelation, cleared them of misconception, interpreted them with a view to the present needs of man, and thus incorporated them in His supernatural revelation of redemption."

2. God "provided a cure for the spiritual blindness of man in the work of regeneration and sanctification, including spiritual illumination, and thus enabled man once more to obtain true knowledge of God, the knowledge that carries with it the assurance of eternal life."

Definition of 2 Types of Revelation and Their Biblical Basis:

General Revelation is "addressed generally to all intelligent creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men. Its aim is "to meet and supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God. It is "rooted in creation, is addressed to man as man, and more particularly to human reason, and finds its purpose in the realization of the end of his creation, to know God and thus enjoy communion with Him." - Ps. 19:1,2; Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19, 20. 

Special Revelation is "addressed to a special class of sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation to rescue broken and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences." It is "rooted in the redemptive plan of God, is addressed to man as sinner, can be properly understood and appropriated only by faith, and serves the purpose of securing the end for which man was created in spite of the disturbance wrought by sin." - I Kings 17:13: Ps. 103:7; John 1:18; Heb. 1:1,2.