1. The Models of Revelation
A somewhat in-depth view
Of Avery Dulles’ work

2. The Models of Revelation
Revelation as
Propositional (Literal Words)
History (The Acts of God)
Inner Experience (Mysticism)
Dialectical Presence (Hegelian Paradox)
New Consciousness (Self-participation)

3. Model 1:Revelation as Proposition
Aka the Doctrinal Model
Long standing history
Prominent with Conservative Evangelicalism and Catholic Neo-Scholasticism

4. Doctrine Model
Maintains that supernatural revelation is given in the form of words having a clear propositional (doctrinal) content.
It comes to us in a clear body of doctrine.
Most literally the Bible, Tradition and the magisterial teachings of the Church.
Every word of it.

5. Strengths and Weakness?
Biblical? Witness in Tradition?
Evident in teaching of prophets, apostles
Body of Doctrines and Dogmas
Clear and apparent, black and white.
No Doubt
Propositional and sensible; “Scientific.”
Example: This is the premise, therefore that.

6. Criticism
Bible doesn’t claim such propositional infallibility for itself.
Nor did ancient or medieval exegetes.
Modern Biblical Scholarship
Doesn’t account for “historical-criticism”
Dis-avows “theology has a sociology.”
Does not account for Biblical imagery or symbolism of the Tradition.
Exclusive, esp. in Ecumenical Dialogue.

7. Model 2: Revelation as History
A response to the Doctrinal Model of Revelation
Popularized by Biblical Theologian: Oscar Cullman, referred to by Pope Benedict XVI
Prominence in Mainline Protestantism

8. Historical Model
An emphasis on “event” or “actions” of God as opposed to the “words”
The event yields the supernatural significance, seen especially through the eyes of faith.
The naked event occurs for the believer and nonbeliever
The disclosure of the divine plan to the prophet
Event is put in context of the rest of “salvation history”

9. Applications The Bible is revelation
Not because it accurately recounts history from a human point of view
BUT because it NARRATES and INTERPRETS the action of God in history.
The Bible is a collection of STORY, not doctrine

10. Strengths and Weakness?
Biblical and witness in the Tradition?
“Actions speak louder than Words.”
Picks up Biblical themes missing from Doctrinal Model
Model is more Organic and Dynamic, refers to the pattern of God’s love in history (honors sociology).
Allows for gray
Less authoritarian, Critical thinking encouraged

11. Criticism Is there a disconnection between God’s Word and Action?
What about the Books of Wisdom?
That’s not history or events
Modern Biblical Scholarship: Bible is NOT written as a strict history (as we understand it today)
No witness to early Tradition
Lastly: WHAT is an “act of God”?
This needs clarification

12. Model 3: Revelation as Inner Experience
A response to Enlightenment’s attack/critique on Religion.
Popular among “Born Again” Christians
Perhaps among young Catholics
Liberal Protestantism, Mystical Catholicism

13. “Mystical” Model
Recognizes “experience” as the basis of existence. Therefore, religious experience is the basis of Religion.
The Experience of Grace.
God speaks to us directly.
Bible, Tradition are not revelation until God speaks to us in experience.

14. Strengths and Weaknesses?
Biblical or witness in Tradition
Appeal to the Holy Spirit in Scripture
Revelation is not a science, it’s a different type of truth. Not factual or conceptual knowledge.
Supports Catholic Mystical tradition and devotion.
Common ground with other religions.

15. Criticisms Selective use of the Bible.
Users of this model fell back to the first or second models.
What determines the Bible as authoritative? What about other religious texts?
(e.g. Koran, Hindu and Buddhist texts)
Individualistic, relativistic and syncretic.

16. Last Critique Experience has to be interpreted.
There’s clearly a sacramental element to revelation. Model does not account for this. It’s definitely NOT either, or.

17. Model 4: Revelation as Dialectical Presence
Response to Liberal Theology and the “Quest for the Historical Jesus.”
Developed around World War I.
Attempts to utilize other models.
Theologians that used this method eventually abandoned it.
(Bultmann, Barth et al)

18. Dialectical Presence
God reveals himself, but he’s also concealed. ABSOLUTE MYSTERY.
“Paradoxical.” Presence in absence. Words can’t sufficiently express.
Culminates in Christ, the ultimate expression of revelation.
Bible or Tradition isn’t Revelation in true sense except insofar it preaches Christ.

19. Strengths Biblical and witness in Tradition?
Barth and Bultmann were leading Protestant Theologians. Biblically centered. Influenced Protestant thought after 1920s.
Not worried of scientific inquiry:
Faith is not plausible, nor doesn’t have to be.
What historical research finds doesn’t matter.
Acknowledge God as ABSOLUTE MYSTERY. Accounts for His “transcendence and immanence.”

20. Critique: No one liked it.
Conservative and Orthodox theologies displeased with its circumventing of clear teachings.
(Early Century) Liberal theologies didn’t like its implicit appeal to the authority of Scripture.
Exclusive. Christocentric which doesn’t help ecumenical dialogue.

21. More Critiques
Catholic principle of “Faith and Reason” is ignored. This model throws out Reason.
The Historical Jesus must be taken into account for a genuine faith.
Faith guided by reason
But reason within the bounds of faith
The theologians that used this method abandoned it for the other models.

22. Model 5: Revelation as New Awareness
Derived from subjective idealism of the nineteenth century. Philosophically, traced to transcendental idealism of Kant.
Elements of Rahner, Tillich and Vatican II (Though not entirely).

23. New Consciousness Revelation as a participation in the divine life.
Subject not passive (like in other models), but actively.
Revelation “occurs when human powers are raised to their highest pitch of activity.”
Like a radio finding the reception of God.

24. Strengths Biblical and Witness in Tradition?
Gospel of John? Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution.
Flexible, avoids questions of history, honors sociology, honors the “subject.”
Full active participation of person
Looks at history as “evolutionary.”

25. Critiques Hardly Biblical No foundation in EARLY Tradition
Potentially Relativistic
Individualistic
“A new Christian Gnosis”—Karl Barth
He didn’t like this model

26. Questions for consideration
What model have you identified yourself into?
How does the “symbolic mediation” approach rescue each model?