Abstract

Abstract The questions of whether God reveals himself; if so, how we can know a purported revelation is authentic; and how such revelations relate to the insights of reason are discussed by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, G. W. Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant, to name a few. Yet, what these philosophers say with such consistency about revelation stands in stark contrast with the claims of the Christian East, which are equally consistent from the second century through the fourteenth century. In this essay, I will compare the modern discussion of special revelation from Thomas Hobbes through Johann Fichte with the Eastern Christian discussion from Irenaeus through Gregory Palamas. As we will see, there are noteworthy differences between the two trajectories, differences I will suggest merit careful consideration from philosophers of religion.

Highlights

  • In what follows, I will look at the modern discussion of special revelation from Thomas Hobbes through Johann G

  • The questions of whether God reveals himself; if so, how we can know a purported revelation is authentic; and how such revelations relate to the insights of reason are discussed by John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, René Descartes, G

  • I will compare the modern discussion of special revelation from Thomas Hobbes through Johann Fichte with the Eastern Christian discussion from Irenaeus through Gregory Palamas

Read more

Summary

Special revelation in Western modern thought

Like other modern discussions about revelation, Fichte understands special revelation to be an empirical experience It involves an appearance or event in the world that is of a peculiar enough sort that it is believed to originate (causally) with God. Yet, unlike earlier discussions, Fichte, with Kant, rejects the notion that revelation offers truths that are above reason.—After all, God can hold us accountable for only that which is verifiable through reason alone.—And though Fichte believes, with the rationalists, that the offerings of revelation are a priori, these a priori truths are of a very specific sort. With the Copernican turn of Kant, Fichte sees only one a priori truth to be revealed, namely, God as cause of both the theoretical and the practical

Divine vision in the Christian East
Some conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.