1

Model one: Revelation as Doctrine.

God reveals himself in nature, but not sufficiently for salvation. Supernatural/special revelation
is given for saving knowledge of God. This revelation was originally given through theophany
and prophecy (and ultimately in Christ). As salvation-history progressed, it increasingly took the
form of doctrine and was written down by holy men. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
Scripture is the objective revelation of God. The nature of this revelation in Scripture is
propositional and rational (being communicated from the divine intellect to the human intellect
by speech). The response to this propositional truth is assent. Finds historical precedence in: old
rabbinic theories of inspiration, some early Church Fathers, Medieval syllogistic approaches to
theology, humanist text criticism, conservative battles with liberalism.
Protestant Advocates: Gordon Clark, J. I. Packer, John Warwick Montgomery, Carl Henry, and
is articulated in the 1978 Chicago Statement on inerrancy.
Roman Catholics Advocates: Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Christian Pesch, Hermann
Dieckmann, and various conciliar documents arising from Vatican I (Also, Roman Catholic
proponents of this view argue that this propositional revelation is found in Tradition).
Merits: faithful to Christian dogmatic history, fits with biblical language of Scripture as Gods
word, encourages loyalty to confession and tradition, and it preserves the uniqueness and
superiority of Christian revelation.
Criticisms: too reductionisticignores how genre informs meaning of Bible verses, and
overstates the role of propositions in the conveyance of truth (cf. Speech-Act theory), inadequate
to our experience of truth and reality.
Model two: Revelation as History. The Bible is not primarily the word of God, but the
(relatively faithful) record of Gods objective, revelatory deeds in history. The Bible is a
confessional recital by the people of God as they reflect upon these great deeds. These events
disclose Gods plan for the redemption of the world (thus, the interpretation is bound up with the
event). The response to this deed form of revelation is trust in God who acts in history for his
peoples salvation.
Advocates: William Temple, G. Ernest Wright, Oscar Cullmann, Wolart Pannenburg.
Merits: Regards Gods actions in history as concrete, gives greater attention to neglected
Biblical books and genres (historical, prophetical, and apocalyptic), more flexible than the
propositional model of revelation.
Criticisms: too reductionisticis revelation only in deed and not in word?, this model finds
little support in Church history prior to the rise of historical consciousness, ecumenically
inadequate, the idea of an act of God is not defined well.
Model three: Revelation as Inner Experience. God is transcendent and immanent, absolute
and immanent. Through a transforming religious experience it is possible to discern the divine
presence (this is an experience of divine grace). Rejects natural/ supernatural revelation
dichotomy; wherever there is real religion, there is real revelation (the Christian theologian is no
3

more privileged in this regard than the Brahman). Revelation comes individually, but broadens
into a cultural-religious context. The criterion of true revelation is whether it produces a fruitful
religious life. Revelation is necessarily interior because God is Spirit. Revelation is an
immediate, consciousness of God, and gives a mystical knowledge that illuminates everything
else. Revelation is God directly communicating himself to the soul that is open to him. Doctrine,
confessions, traditions are human attempts to describe an ineffable revelatory experience. They
are at best symbolic descriptions, but when treated like revelation they become idolatrous.
Revelation and salvation are identical.
Protestant Advocates: Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, Wilhelm Hermann, Auguste
Sabatier, C. H. Dodd, H. Wheeler Robinson.
Roman Catholic Advocates: George Tyrell, Baron Friedrich von Hgel, Karl Rahner.
Merits: timely (it arose as a response to rationalisms critique of classical revelation), devotional.
Criticisms: Contradicts most of the Bible, revelation is for the spiritual genius (those
disciplined, spiritual enough to perceive the divine), too narrow a view of experience, and a
presumptuous view of religious experiences.
Model four: Revelation as Dialectical Encounter.
Very paradoxical. Revelation is a salvific encounter with the living God. Revelation is a mystery
because it is a revelation of a God who is absolute mystery. As a result, even Gods revelation
also conceals himself. God reveals himself as Judge and Justifier in Christ. Generally, rejects
natural revelation. Gods revelation cannot be discerned within history, doctrine, or experience,
but we are nonetheless to believe he is present (hiddenly) in these. The Word of God is (even in
the post-apostolic Church) a free decision and gi of God. The Bible, the Church, preaching, bear
witness to revelation, but are not revelation; these can become the Word of God if Christ is
pleased to speak through them. The Bible is not inerrant, because it was wri_en by fallible men,
but Christ can still be pleased to speak his Word through their fallible words. The truth given is
not it-truth (i.e. propositional) but the truth of God asserting himself in Christ as judged and
saved with us. Revelation stands over and above history and man. So it cannot be authenticated
or proved by man apart from faith. This also means that the historical Jesus does not constitute
revelation; yet, the divine Word is present in history without being identical to it.
Advocates: Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, Emil Brunner
Merits: certain affinities to the paradoxical word of the cross which Paul (and Luther) spoke
of, a bulwark against positivist and liberal critiques of Christianity, Christ-centered and
Trinitarian, helped revive interest in Protestant systematic theology, preserves idea of an
encounter with God without falling into errors of experiential model.
Criticisms: Not very biblical or in line with Church tradition, it tends to be rather incoherent,
built on modernist foundations.
Model five: Revelation as New Awareness.
Revelation is a break through in human society. Revelation is related to human progress and
psychic growth, the convergence of many into one. It is a reflection of God in our consciousness;
it does not come from without, but from within. Revelation is a new mode of human
consciousness; it is the process by which God works from within history

and tradition to lead to a higher consciousness. As such, revelation always correlates with human
questions arising out of a cultural and historical context. Jesus Christ stands as the high point of
this consciousness. God is not an object, but a horizon. Reason is involved, not discursively, but
as an attempt to think through new possibilities and new meanings; the truth which revelation
gives is not propositional, but pragmatic. History (and the Bible) is useful as it testifies to
previous break through experience, and gives meaningful paradigms of human selftranscendence that are still useful in the present. All of human history is under the influence of
Gods grace; this gracious revelation is universal in scope and intent.
Protestant Advocates: Gregory Baum, Gabriel Moram, Paul Tillich, Ray L. Hart.
Roman Catholic Advocates: Maurice Blondel, Teilhard de Chardin, Julian Huxley, Leslie
Dewart.
Merits: Not authoritarian or reconstructive or sentimental, harmonizes with the dominant view
of world history (evolutionary-progressive), encourages human action and responsibility in
society.
Criticisms: Not faithful to Bible or Church history, its rejection of an outsider God is very
problematic, Hegelianism (which is in essence what this view proposes) has been soundly
rejected by Christian theology, what of those who experience God enthroned above history?
Since it has no message, it can give no answers.