Why progressive revelation?

Schuhart

I’m splitting this thought off from the ‘omnisience’ thread, as this touches on a point I’ve frequently felt to be a large hole in the logic behind Christianity.

I don’t see anything logically wrong with a particular tribe or nation saying ‘God picked us out as his people’. Maybe God picks favourites – why wouldn’t he? But this whole business of the Jewish Messiah turning up and suddenly throwing a restricted Convenent open to all seems senseless. I have seen comments like PDN’s try to explain this

PDN wrote: »

God progressively revealed Himself to man - just as anyone has to learn anything one step at a time. He started by picking out one group of people and began to systematically teach them to abandon their old ways and learn a new lifestyle.

However, this seems (to my mind) to raise as many questions as it answers.

Why would God start out with just one group of people? Does this mean that none of the others have a chance of redemption, until Jesus turns up? Even when Jesus turns up, do I still have a chance of redemption if I live somewhere remote from the message where we either never heard of Christianity, or only heard of it as the wrong religion? Surely this means either that God is unfair (as people who couldn’t reasonably access his message get damned) or that Christianity is unnecessary to be saved (as only people who’ve heard the message in detail need worry about it).

Also, what is the quality in humanity that suddenly made us fit for the final message two thousand years ago? For the sake of argument, Greeks seemed to be capable of chewing the fat about philosophy for hundreds of years before Jesus arrived – suggesting that humans already had the capacity to handle whatever concepts needed to be thrown at them.

So why all the cloak and dagger stuff? Why not supply mankind as a whole a definitive rulebook from day one?

PDN

You're really asking 2 distinct questions here, so let me take each one separately.

Schuhart wrote: »

Why would God start out with just one group of people? Does this mean that none of the others have a chance of redemption, until Jesus turns up? Even when Jesus turns up, do I still have a chance of redemption if I live somewhere remote from the message where we either never heard of Christianity, or only heard of it as the wrong religion? Surely this means either that God is unfair (as people who couldn’t reasonably access his message get damned) or that Christianity is unnecessary to be saved (as only people who’ve heard the message in detail need worry about it).

Firstly, let me point out that redemption is an undeserved gift, not a right. The Bible teaches that we all sin and that sin has bad consequences. Therefore if God had offered nobody the opportunity of redemption, we would still have no right to complain. It's bit like picking out a beggar in Africa and giving him money. Are you doing something kind, or does that give other beggars the right to complain how unfair you are that you selected one beggar and therefore treated the others unfairly? Therefore I do not think it must follow that God has to give everybody an equal opportunity for redemption.

My own personal belief (I stress that this is highly speculative, and other Christians may well disagree with me) is that people in all cultures and societies have received some revelation of God, no matter how imperfect. I believe God is a just God and that He will judge everybody by the light they have received - although I must stress that most people in all cultures have failed miserably to live up to the light they have received.

You ask a very thoughtful question in that you ask if "only people who’ve heard the message in detail need worry about it". This certainly identifies the weakness in the position of those Christians who say things like, "The only sin God will judge you for is rejecting the Gospel". If that were so then missionaries would be doing people a disservice by preaching the Gospel to them. Far better to leave them in ignorance so they can't be judged for rejecting a Gospel which they've never heard.

My own opinion is that preaching the Gospel to a previously unreached person will give them a second opportunity to receive redemption since they have probably failed to live up to the light they have received. So, I am not ruling out the possibility of someone who has never heard the Gospel being saved, but I think that the possibility becomes much greater when they hear the Christian Gospel.

Also, what is the quality in humanity that suddenly made us fit for the final message two thousand years ago? For the sake of argument, Greeks seemed to be capable of chewing the fat about philosophy for hundreds of years before Jesus arrived – suggesting that humans already had the capacity to handle whatever concepts needed to be thrown at them.

So why all the cloak and dagger stuff? Why not supply mankind as a whole a definitive rulebook from day one?

This is the progressive revelation question. This probably won't please you, but I'm going, to at least some extent, fall back on the old standbys of faith and mystery.

I believe that God has arranged things in a way that has achieved the following aims:
a) For the maximum number of people to receive redemption.
b) For human free will not to be so compromised as to become meaningless.
My faith is that the method of progressive revelation achieved, and will ultimately achieve (for I believe the process is still continuing as we learn the lessons, often painful, that history teaches) the maximum results while balancing these two aims.

It is true that Greek philosophers chewed the fat over philosophical principles for many centuries, but that did not produce the results in people's lives. For example, at one time Islamic scholars studied the Greek philosophers much more closely than Christians, yet today we would not have the freedom to carry on this discussion in a public forum if we were in Saudi Arabia. God's method of progressive revelation has produced a situation where those societies where the Gospel has been preached most also happen, for the most part, where we see tolerance and rational discourse as basic values.

I see the same situation in respect to slavery. Yes, it would be easier for Christians in internet fora if the Bible contained a clear unambiguous declaration that all forms of slavery are wrong. But the fact is that slavery is a symptom of something much more serious - the all too human tendency to treat others as inferior or even as less than human. The New Testament, by stressing that slaves and masters are brothers together in Christ, made inevitable the eventual abolition of slavery. Do I wish it had happened quicker? Do I wish the New Testament condemned slavery more clearly? Of course! But my faith in God leads me to trust that, for some reason I cannot see, that God's way achieved the necessary result more effectively than any alternative.

Unsatisfying I know, but there you go!

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Therefore if God had offered nobody the opportunity of redemption, we would still have no right to complain.

That’s perfectly reasonable, if somewhat bleak. It suggests that God has no individual interest in us, which I think won’t cause any argument from the atheist camp.

PDN wrote: »

I do not think it must follow that God has to give everybody an equal opportunity for redemption.

There’s no reason for God to be consistent – unless, surely, he’s fair. I can take an inconsistent God who isn’t that pushed about humanity one way or the other. But I don’t see how you reconcile that with a belief that he’s just.

PDN wrote: »

I am not ruling out the possibility of someone who has never heard the Gospel being saved, but I think that the possibility becomes much greater when they hear the Christian Gospel.

That strikes me as a reasonable position – the alternative being an unfair God.

PDN wrote: »

I believe that God has arranged things in a way that has achieved the following aims:
a) For the maximum number of people to receive redemption.
b) For human free will not to be so compromised as to become meaningless.

The free will argument is probably sustainable up to a point, assuming that the free will must be exercised without certainty, but it seems like a terribly convoluted way to save the maximum number of people.

PDN wrote: »

For example, at one time Islamic scholars studied the Greek philosophers much more closely than Christians, yet today we would not have the freedom to carry on this discussion in a public forum if we were in Saudi Arabia.

In fairness, I wouldn’t blame the Greeks for Saudi Arabia.

PDN wrote: »

God's method of progressive revelation has produced a situation where those societies where the Gospel has been preached most also happen, for the most part, where we see tolerance and rational discourse as basic values.

Which, in fairness, the Greeks may have helped influence.

PDN wrote: »

Do I wish the New Testament condemned slavery more clearly? Of course! But my faith in God leads me to trust that, for some reason I cannot see, that God's way achieved the necessary result more effectively than any alternative.

To be honest, I find that less problematic. I don’t think the expectation would be for a rulebook that determines every situation – how could a revelation 2,000 years ago tell you if sub-prime mortgage lending was moral? As I see it, a lot of Christianity’s coherence problems come from trying to knit with the Old Testament – bringing in all those nasty laws, to say nothing of tortuous reasoning to say ‘see, Christ’s coming is foretold by these here prophets’. The whole thing would seem to operate better if the story was simply ‘God saw everything was going assways, so he came down himself as he’d lost all hope of people working it out for themselves’ without any attempt to knit it into any pre-existing tradition. (Which I know is probably an unfair statement to put to a Christian, as I take it the answer is ‘well, he came and said he was the guy who was foretold so we sort of believe him’.)

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

In fairness, I wouldn’t blame the Greeks for Saudi Arabia.

No, neither would I, but that is not my point. My point is that extensive exposure to Greek philosophy did not prevent a culture moving in a backward and oppressive direction. Mere pronouncements and philosophy are largely powerless to change human nature and societal values. Such change appears to occur best through a gradual process - hence progressive revelation.

Just look, for example, at what happens if you try to impose a good value (democracy) on people who are not ready for it. They simply use their democratic will to elect the biggest bunch of extremists they can find.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Mere pronouncements and philosophy are largely powerless to change human nature and societal values. Such change appears to occur best through a gradual process - hence progressive revelation.

That doesn't sound unreasonable as, in a sense, that's how I'd put a secular interpretation on history - that we're getting a bit more of a clue as time goes by (except I'd would not see progress as irreversible).

But does this concept of progressive revelation not undermine the idea that the Christian revelation (or any competing revelation) is the final one for all time? Maybe God's just waiting until we've got this bit digested before sending the next message. Of maybe we can envisage reaching a level where we can say 'well, now that we've worked it out, we don't need that old book any more'?

Schuhart

I’d suggest that, for purpose of discussion, we have to accept the scenario of gradual revelation – just because that’s what’s happened in the Christian viewpoint. So, presumably, God gives his message to the Jews and lets that bubble away until he thinks its time to send Jesus. Why exactly then, who knows and it is a valid question. But let’s just assume for a moment that the whole business is terribly complicated but that if we’d divine knowledge it would all be clear. Cosmically, two thousand years is yesterday, so I wouldn’t see a point in quibbling over that gnat if we’re taking the camel.

However, a point that seems (to me) to jump out of this progressive revelation approach is that the revelation can surely not be stated as final with any certainty. So why not Mohammed arriving with a different version 600 years after Jesus? Why not someone else completely different some time next year? Or why not a time when we’ve outgrown the need for all these cosmic messengers?

PDN

Schuhart wrote: »

However, a point that seems (to me) to jump out of this progressive revelation approach is that the revelation can surely not be stated as final with any certainty. So why not Mohammed arriving with a different version 600 years after Jesus? Why not someone else completely different some time next year? Or why not a time when we’ve outgrown the need for all these cosmic messengers?

I would say a major difference is that Judaism always looked forward to something different. Scattered throughout the Old Testament are prophecies that speak of other nations (not just Jews) coming to God, and of a Messiah that was to come.

The New Testament, however, affirms that the reign and influence of Jesus will continue right up to the end of the earth. So a 'different version' that supplanted Jesus would directly contradict, rather than fulfilling, the New Testament.

However, I do believe that the principle of progressive revelation, in one sense, is still taking place. As I read Church history I see Christians learning from the insights (and mistakes) of the past and so moving into a fuller understanding of God's purposes. To be sure this is not receiving new revelation on the same level as Scripture, but rather an ever increasing understanding of Scripture. Human knowledge has demonstrably increased and developed in most other spheres, so why not in theology?

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

To be sure this is not receiving new revelation on the same level as Scripture, but rather an ever increasing understanding of Scripture. Human knowledge has demonstrably increased and developed in most other spheres, so why not in theology?

That would seem sensible - and I recall recently reading an article by a Catholic priest having much that view of the Catholic Church's history. Essentially, he saw it in terms of a bureaucratic hierarchy being an appropriate vehicle for Christianity at a time when, say, literacy would not have been common. But today that structure would be redundant - or at least only useful in some other role.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

You're really asking 2 distinct questions here, so let me take each one separately.



Firstly, let me point out that redemption is an undeserved gift, not a right. The Bible teaches that we all sin and that sin has bad consequences. Therefore if God had offered nobody the opportunity of redemption, we would still have no right to complain.

You believe god created us complete with original sin Which is not our fault. God gives us this sin and then forgives us for that same sin and acts as though its a gift?

It's bit like picking out a beggar in Africa and giving him money.

No it's not, unless the guy in africa is a beggar because you caused him to be a beggar, in which case, offering him charity is not kindness, it would be the very least you should do.

Are you doing something kind, or does that give other beggars the right to complain how unfair you are that you selected one beggar and therefore treated the others unfairly? Therefore I do not think it must follow that God has to give everybody an equal opportunity for redemption.

It depends on who you are. If you're just an ordinary person and you give a portion of your limited income to a stranger, then it is not his fault that there were many who didn't receive anything, But if you are the head of a huge charity with massive resources, and you choose to give all the money to one group of people and completely ignore everyone else even though you have more than enough money to help them all, then of course they should feel hard done by.

God could save everyone if he wanted to at no cost to himself.

You ask a very thoughtful question in that you ask if "only people who’ve heard the message in detail need worry about it". This certainly identifies the weakness in the position of those Christians who say things like, "The only sin God will judge you for is rejecting the Gospel". If that were so then missionaries would be doing people a disservice by preaching the Gospel to them. Far better to leave them in ignorance so they can't be judged for rejecting a Gospel which they've never heard.

My own opinion is that preaching the Gospel to a previously unreached person will give them a second opportunity to receive redemption since they have probably failed to live up to the light they have received. So, I am not ruling out the possibility of someone who has never heard the Gospel being saved, but I think that the possibility becomes much greater when they hear the Christian Gospel.

Many christians believe that unless you are a christian and believe in jesus and worship him, then you are not going to be saved. 'The light' doesn't come into it.

This is the progressive revelation question. This probably won't please you, but I'm going, to at least some extent, fall back on the old standbys of faith and mystery.

I believe that God has arranged things in a way that has achieved the following aims:
a) For the maximum number of people to receive redemption.

God is supposed to be omnipotent. The maximum number of people he could save is everybody.

b) For human free will not to be so compromised as to become meaningless.
My faith is that the method of progressive revelation achieved, and will ultimately achieve (for I believe the process is still continuing as we learn the lessons, often painful, that history teaches) the maximum results while balancing these two aims.

If God wanted everyone to be saved by their own free will, all he would need to do would be to make his existence irrefutable and end the debate altogether. By playing hard to get, he is condemning people who looked at the evidence and chose one of the infinite number of other options that are equally if not more plausible (if only to them in their own circumstances) than the christian religion

It is true that Greek philosophers chewed the fat over philosophical principles for many centuries, but that did not produce the results in people's lives.

Of course they did. Where do you think the concept of a republic came from? Epicurus said hundreds of years before christ that we should treat others as we would like them to treat us. He had his own followers who survived for more than half a millenium and never claimed to be any kind of divine creature.

For example, at one time Islamic scholars studied the Greek philosophers much more closely than Christians, yet today we would not have the freedom to carry on this discussion in a public forum if we were in Saudi Arabia.

And if I tried to denounce god in the middle ages, I could have been burned as a heretic.

God's method of progressive revelation has produced a situation where those societies where the Gospel has been preached most also happen, for the most part, where we see tolerance and rational discourse as basic values.

Not because of religion, but because of long and hard fought political struggle. Most Religious institutions are still totalitarian

I see the same situation in respect to slavery. Yes, it would be easier for Christians in internet fora if the Bible contained a clear unambiguous declaration that all forms of slavery are wrong. But the fact is that slavery is a symptom of something much more serious - the all too human tendency to treat others as inferior or even as less than human. The New Testament, by stressing that slaves and masters are brothers together in Christ, made inevitable the eventual abolition of slavery.

Nonsense. The only thing that made abolition inevitable was uprising and revolt. The Confederates in the U.S. civil war were just as religious (if not more) as the Union side. The abolition movement was not a religious one, it was a political one. Religion was used widely by both sides to justify their claims thus rendering it pretty useless

Do I wish it had happened quicker? Do I wish the New Testament condemned slavery more clearly? Of course! But my faith in God leads me to trust that, for some reason I cannot see, that God's way achieved the necessary result more effectively than any alternative.

Unsatisfying I know, but there you go!

Jesus would have condemned the abolition movement, he would also have condemned slave uprisings.
A slaves duty was to obey his master.