Evangelicalism’s relationship to the theology of broader Christendom is decidedly asymmetric. Whereas evangelicals are occasionally willing to read and use the work a diverse set of scholars, these scholars, in general, do not employ evangelical theology with the same readiness. There are many reasons for such lack of reciprocity, but one that is frequently unrecognized is the perception, often correct, that evangelicals are prone to misunderstandings in their appropriation of external scholarship. This occurs with the way that they use both philosophers and theologians, being especially pronounced in the utilization of Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Barth. One area of systematics that acutely bears this problem is that of revelation.
This paper will attempt to describe five of the most common and influential misunderstandings concerning divine revelation. First, is the claim that revelation is a precise doctrine in Scripture, which is derived more from the significance of the doctrine to Reformed theology than from exegetical evidence concerning it. Revelation occurs and is described in Scripture, but it never receives the same type of systematic treatment that other doctrines receive. In other words, revelation is more narratively described than theoretically defined. Second, is the claim that Scripture is God’s “self-revelation”, which is a category mistake based on an uncritical appropriation of Hegelian metaphysics as mediated by early 20th century Neo-orthodoxy. Third, is the claim that science is general revelation which is often related to the belief that all truth is revealed. This view misunderstands both what is meant by revelation, but also what is meant by science. Fourth, is the implicit claim that general revelation should be sought, by believers or unbelievers. An often-ignored exegetical facet of the major passages that are used to develop an understanding of general revelation, is that they have no imperatives concerning their pursuit. Lasty, is the implicit claim that speaking is the same as revelation or that revealing is the same thing as the sign relationship. This occurs because speaking is an important way in which God reveals and thus, the two categories are conflated. Furthermore, the way the semiotic relationship is related to natural signs by Augustine has been appropriated as describing revelation, which appears to be a conceptual leap. In each of the above cases, this paper will attempt to show the exegetical, theological, and historical errors that allow for these misunderstandings not only to occur, but to be common among Evangelicalism.