1 - General and
Special Revelation
I received a request a week or so ago to
comment about the topics of general and special revelation, so here goes. God “reveals” to us – discloses to us – in a
variety of ways, generally falling into two categories. These two categories are general revelation
and special revelation.
General Revelation:
Both general and special revelation are
considered divine disclosures, though general revelation does not specifically
disclose matters necessary for salvation.
We’ll talk about that more when we look at special revelation.
By general revelation, we can see the
existence of God. We can see that God
created the universe and is actively involved in it today. We can see the power of God and the wonder of
God. We can see the eternality of
God. We can see the evil that is the
reaction to the holiness and goodness of God.
The
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states the following regarding a summary of
positions for general revelation:
1.
Some
scholars deny any reality to general revelation. Postulating an infinite qualitative
distinction between God and persons and destruction of the imago Dei (the image of God) by the fall. Barth refused to acknowledge any revelation
outside the Word of God.
2.
Others
concede the givenness of general revelation but deny that it registers as
actual knowledge. The Dutch Reformed School
of Kuyper, Berkouwer, Van Til and followers insist that nature and history
point to God only in those who antecedently have been illumined by regenerating
grace.
3.
On
the other extreme, many liberals insist that the light afforded by general
revelation is sufficient for salvation.
One tradition focuses attention on the illuminatory value of ecstatic
religious experience. . . . A second
liberal tradition claims that the human mind, utilizing the scientific method,
is capable of ferreting out truth sufficient for humans to order their
lives. Thus, H.P. Van Dusen, H. DeWolf
and others argue that since the world is ordered by God and reflects His will,
a scientific analysis of persons and their environment will lead savingly to
God.
4.
Aquinas
and Thomistic tradition claim that the rational mind, aided by the analogy of
being between God and humans and the law of cause and effect, is capable of
proving God’s existence and the infinity of His perfections. . . . Although optimistic about one’s natural
ability to amass knowledge of God, he stressed that salvation requires higher
truths mediated by special revelation.
5.
Authorities
such as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, and Henry argue for the
objective reality of general revelation and its limited utility for mediating
elemental knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral demand. . . . Luther stated that ‘all men have the
general knowledge that God is, that He has created heaven and earth, that He is
just, that He punished the wicked, etc.’
Calvin similarly insisted that ‘evil wicked men are forced, by the mere
view of earth and sky, to rise to the Creator.’
. . .”[1]
So, what does all of this mean? General revelation is supplied by our view of
the world around us. Does general
revelation save? No, but it could lead
someone to search further or to be persuaded to be more receptive to special
revelation. Why do I say that? Some will argue that to view the sky or a tree
or the birth of a child is sufficient to disclose salvation, but I think that
is misguided. Clearly those things are
evidence of the existence of God, but they do not instruct that God’s salvation
plan is that Jesus would come, live, die and resurrect – by the Grace of God –
so that we can spend eternity with Him.
Let’s don’t discount general revelation, but
let’s seek to understand its limitation and the necessity of special
revelation.
Next time we will see if there are some traditional
references to general revelation in the Bible.
Doug
[1] pp. 1019-1020.
Comments