George H. Warnock — Prolegomena
b2 — Evening and Morning
Nature as Revelation of God
Warnock regards nature as a direct manifestation of the Word of God and thus as general revelation:
“After all, we must expect this to be so, for Nature is but a manifestation of the Word of God. There was a time when men had no Word but the Word of Nature, and it was such a clear revelation of the mind and character of God that the apostle was able to say, ‘The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.‘” (Evening and Morning, Ch. 1, citing Rom. 1:20)
“The heavenly bodies are for ‘lights’ as well as ‘for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years’ (Gen. 1:13). There are orbits of Truth. There are seasons of Truth.” (Ch. 1)
Interpretation: Warnock positions nature as the primary medium of revelation prior to the written Scripture. The visible creation is for him not merely analogy but a concrete manifestation of God’s eternal order and character.
Definition of Theology — Further Development
Building on his theology/Truth distinction (see b1), Warnock here formulates a sharper rejection of theology as a method of knowing:
“That is why ‘theology’ as such has really no place in Christian progress nor in Divine revelation. By ‘theology’ we mean the ‘science about God.’ God never was interested in telling us about Himself. Nor was Jesus ever concerned in telling the disciples about the Father. He came rather to REVEAL THE FATHER and MAKE HIM KNOWN. Not facts about Him, but to MAKE HIM KNOWN.” (Ch. 1)
Interpretation: Warnock draws a principled distinction between theology as science about God (cognitive information transfer) and revelation as direct knowledge of God. Theology as an academic discipline is regarded not merely as insufficient but as categorically unsuitable for the purpose of Christian faith.
Scriptural Authority as Foundation and Compass
Over against his critique of theological systems, Warnock insists on Scripture as indispensable foundation:
“When men begin to lay aside the Scriptures on the assumption that they have gone beyond what is written in the Word, they are destroying the very foundation upon which solid Christian character is built, and are throwing away the compass that alone can direct them to the haven of rest which they imagine they have already entered.” (Ch. 1)
“Whenever forms of truth, and religious structures and systems are emphasized, the people of God are invariably bogged-down in human contrivances that will eventually lead them nowhere. Proper doctrines and methods and structures we will always require, but God wants us to know that the structure of His Church is just as much an outgrowth of the Law of Life (and therefore just as much subject to change), as is the case in any other living thing that He has created.” (Preface)
Interpretation: Warnock’s authority structure is twofold: Scripture is indispensable and irreplaceable as foundation and compass, but religious systems, structures, and methods built upon Scripture are not static — they are subject to growth and change like any living thing.
Rejection of Doctrinal Definition as Theological Method
Warnock rejects doctrinal systematization as a theological method in principle:
“Now someone would like to say, ‘Please explain the doctrine of the Godhead, in the light of what you have written.’ This we must refuse to do, for the doctrine of the Godhead cannot be defined. Church councils invariably assemble to define doctrine and creed when the Spirit and the life of Truth have ebbed away and departed. Sound doctrine does not submit itself to definition, because sound doctrine (Lit. ‘healthful teaching’) is that flowing forth of living Truth, and simply cannot be defined.” (Ch. 5)
Interpretation: Warnock links the desire for doctrinal definition to spiritual decline. ‘Sound doctrine’ (“healthful teaching”) is for him not a system but a stream of living Truth — by definition undefinable. This constitutes an explicit methodological position.
Rejection of Creeds
Warnock explicitly rejects ecclesiastical creeds as a criterion of authority:
“What about the Apostles’ Creed? I have never studied it, nor am I really too interested in it, because the apostles were dead and buried when church leaders got together and made the Apostles’ Creed. The apostles were not even at the council. What we, as the Body of Christ, must do in this hour is come back to the apostles’ love and life; then we shall go on to that fulness of Christ, the seeds of which they planted in their ministry and testimony…” (Ch. 5)
Interpretation: Warnock rejects the Apostles’ Creed not on the grounds of doctrinal error but of methodological inauthenticity: a creed drawn up without the apostles cannot carry their authority. Against creedal authority he sets living apostolic witness.
Progressive Revelation — The Circular Structure of Truth
Warnock develops his understanding of revelation through the metaphor of Truth’s circular movement through time:
“In this writing we want to emphasize two things. First, that Truth is basically and fundamentally unchangeable, throughout all ages—and consequently in going on with the Lord there is a going back to the Genesis, back to the origin of Divine principles. And second, that in this process of restoration, there is a new unfolding of the Divine glory, and a new unveiling of the Divine purpose.” (Ch. 1)
“Truth is unchangeable… as unchangeable as the Living Christ, who is indeed the Way, the Truth, and the Life. But Truth has been planted in the earth, to CHANGE the people of God, and to lead them forward and upward into the ever-unfolding desires of His own heart.” (Preface)
“Truth is certainly related to history, because it is related to mankind. But Truth is eternal in nature. It springs from eternity, proceeds to do a work in time, and culminates back in eternity.” (Ch. 4)
Interpretation: Warnock’s understanding of revelation combines eternal unchangeability of Truth with its dynamic operation within history. The circular movement implies simultaneously: return to original principles AND advancement toward greater fullness.