Under the Doctrine of Revelation, author Beth Felker Jones points out that theologians identify two types of revelation. General revelation refers to God revealing himself in creation and in the human conscience. Special revelation is God revealing himself through Scripture, the history of Israel, and the living Christ. The author has grouped theological positions debating the validity of these two types of revelation into four categories.
The first category is general revelation as the top priority. In this position, special revelation – biblical teaching, for example – cannot be accepted unless it aligns with “empirical observation and rational reflection.” I do not see this as the source of truth that is most valid because it discounts and undermines the authority of Scripture. As explained in the discussion of the Wesleyan quadrilateral, Scripture is the primary resource that informs Christian life, without which none others can operate. Therefore, we cannot know God without Scripture.
In the second category, Karl Barth makes some very good points in arguing that special revelation takes priority, claiming that the person of Jesus revealed in Scripture is the only reliable revelation of God. This argument does recognize the authority of Scripture; however, I believe there is some use for general revelation, which Barth says “does not give us any valid knowledge of God at all.”
The third category is “Ongoing Continuity Between General and Special Revelation.” This argument states that general revelation is useful, but it must be supported and supplemented by special revelation. This category helps account for the references to nature and the human conscience in passages such as Psalm 19 and Romans1 and 2. This source seems more valid in that it gives credence to both general and special revelation, while noting that special revelation is required for full knowledge of God.
The fourth category, “Unveiled Continuity,” is similar to “Ongoing Continuity,” but it addresses the sin that distorts our view of general revelation. In this view, it is required that God “pull back the veil that obscures nature.” In other words, Scripture allows us to see clearly what sin has distorted. Scripture allows us to correctly interpret general revelation by seeing how it fits with what God allows us to see through special revelation. This is where I would locate myself in these debates because it allows for both general and special revelation, while addressing the sin that clouds our perception.