Skip to main content

Creation And Christ

When we think of the relationship between creation and Christ, we become more strikingly aware of the inadequacy of the word, 'reconciliation' as a replacement for the word, 'revelation.' Christ is the centre of divine revelation. It is in Him alone that there is reconciliation or salvation. While seeing Christ as the centre of divine revelation, we must be careful not to make Christ the sum-total of revelation in such a restrictive way that we lose sight of the important Biblical perspective on creational revelation (more commonly known as 'general revelation.')
By strongly emphasizing the centrality of Christ in God's work of revelation and reconciliation, we are able to go beyond the vagueness of much modern theology when it attempts to speak of God. We must, however, take care not to present Christ in a restrictive way which fails to bring out the comprehensiveness of God's revelation in creation, which forms the indispensable background to God's mighty work of salvation in Christ. The powerful evangelistic significance of a proper emphasis on creational revelation is brought out by A. W. Tozer (The Pursuit of God, pp. 73-82; The Best of Tozer, pp. 20-26). Tozer, concerned to emphasize "Not God spoke, but God is speaking", highlights the danger of thinking of creational revelation as 'natural' and the Bible as 'supernatural.'
This kind of contrast gives the false impression of a silent God who suddenly began to speak only to retreat again into silence after He had spoken. Concerning creational revelation, Tozer writes, "His speaking Voice ... antedates the Bible by uncounted centuries ... that Voice ... has not been silent since the dawn of creation." Tozer stresses the integral relation between creational revelation and biblical revelation: "The Bible will never be a living Book to us until we are convinced that God is articulate in His universe." Tozer insists  that if we fail to appreciate the powerful speaking of God in creation, our witness to Christ will be weakened: "To jump from a dead, impersonal world to a dogmatic Bible is too much for most people. They may admit that they should accept the Bible as the Word of God, and they may try to think of it as such, but they find it impossible to believe that the words there on the page are actually for them." 
Careful to avoid "a divided psychology" which "tries to think of God as mute everywhere else and vocal only in a book", insists that "much of our religious unbelief is due to a wrong conception of and a wrong feeling for the Scriptures of Truth. A silent God suddenly began to speak in a book and when the book was finished lapsed back into silence forever. Now we read the book as the record of what God said when He was for a brief time in a speaking mood. With notions like that in our heads how can we believe?" By grounding the unity of creational and biblical revelation in the conviction that God is "by His nature continuously active", Tozer goes on to stress that the Bible is "not only a book which was once spoken, but a book which is now speaking" and that "a word of God once spoken continues to be spoken."
In our understanding of the Christian message, let us be quite clear that any friction between creation and salvation must be recognized as an unbiblical fiction (the change from 'friction' to 'fiction' is deliberate - it's not a typing error!). Let us see clearly that there is no competition between creation and Christ. Let us rejoice that the salvation of God in Christ opens our eyes to see the glory of God in creation. How we need to allow the glory and the majesty of God to fill our preaching of the Gospel - so that the world cannot turn away from the message we preach with the snide remark, "Your God is too small." 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Berkouwer’s “Holy Scripture” and E J Young’s “Thy Word is Truth”

E J Young argues that one’s doctrine of Scripture is derived from either experience or Scripture, either natural man or supernatural God. Young does speak of the human character of Scripture. It does, however, seem that the supernatural-natural dichotomy underlies his doctrine of Scripture. He turns to the Bible “to discover what it has to say of itself” (p. 40). It is questionable, however, whether his view is not grounded in a notion which tends to set divine and human activity over against each other. Young rejects a mechanical theory (p. 65). It does, however, appear that his own view is really no more than a modification of this view. His interpretation of the working of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture is not directly identifiable with mechanical dictation (pp. 79-80). It does seem, however, that there is a tendency to move in that direction.  * Here are some statements from Young.  - “Without Him (God) there could have been no Bible. Without man th...

Grace found Noah!

Genesis 6:1-22 As we read the story of Noah, we learn of the place of Noah within the divine revelation of the Gospel of grace. "Noah found grace" (8) might be turned around to read, "Grace found Noah." "Amazing grace ... I once was lost but now am found." The significance of Noah, highlighted in 5:29, is expressed in the words, "Not the labour of my hands can fulfil Thy law's demands ... All for sin could not atone, Thou must save, and Thou alone. Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to Thy Cross I cling." To think of the flood exclusively in terms of judgment is to see only one side of what God was doing. As well as judging, He was also saving - "In this ship a few people - eight in all - were saved by water" ( 1 Peter 3:20 ). The ark points forward to Christ, "who came back from death to life", Christ who "saves" us ( 1 Peter 3:21 ).

A Critique of J D Bettis, "Is Karl Barth a Universalist?"

The question of universalism in Barth’s theology has been raised directly by J D Bettis in his article, “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” (Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 20, No. 4, December 1967, pp. 423-436). This article requires to be carefully discussed not only for its significance as an interpretation of Barth’s thought but also because it presents a serious misrepresentation of Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. Bettis writes, “Modern protestant theology has defined three basic answers to the question of the particularity of election: double predestination, Arminianism and universalism” (p. 423). By attempting to fit Berkouwer into “this structure of alternatives” (p. 423), he misrepresents completely Berkouwer’s criticism of Barth. According to Bettis, Brunner and Berkouwrer hold that “because Barth fails to accept either Brunner’s Arminianism or Berkouwer's double decree, he must be a universalist” (p. 426). There are two misrepresentations of Berkouwer here. (...