In the August issue THE OUTLOOK introduced a new series of articles or lessons on Main Lines of Reformed Doctrine by Rev. John H. Piersma, pastor of the Bethany Christian Reformed Church of South Holland, Illinois. Lessons 3 and 4 are herewith presented. This series, intended for church societies, study groups, and all others interested shows promise of being both interesting and profitable. Two lessons will appear each month.
LESSON 3
God’s Revelation (A)
(Scripture passages: Rom. 1:18–23; Psalm 119:97–112; 2 Tim. 3:14–17)
There will be four lessons on this general subject. Lesson 3 will cover four topics: the Need for Revelation, the two Kinds of Revelation, the Relationship between the Two Kinds of Revelation, the Nature of General Revelation. Following lessons will discuss these subjects: the So-Called Proofs for the Existence of God, the Value of General Revelation, Special Revelation, the Media of Special Revelation, Special Revelation and Scripture, Scriptural Evidence for the Inspiration of the Bible, the Specific Character of Inspiration, Basic Literary Forms in Scripture, the Forming of the Canon, the Attributes of Holy Scripture, the Testimony of the Holy Spirit, Scripture and Confession.
THE NEED FOR REVELATION
The Reformed Faith stresses the indispensable need for God to reveal Himself if we are to know Him. This need is indicated by the Belgic Confession in its opening statement when it declares that God is essentially incomprehensible and invisible (Art. I). The word revelation in Scripture often means that “God has removed the veil which covered Him and has exposed Himself to view” (L. Berkhof). You can read this from 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11: “But unto us God revealed them through the Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For who among men knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of the man, which is in him? even so the things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God.”
All knowledge of God presupposes His revelation. We can know Him only insofar as He is pleased to reveal Himself.
It is common to most all religions to appeal to some kind of revelation as the basis of the knowledge claimed. There is, however, a pronounced difference between the revelation of God in the Bible and the so-called revelations on which the various non-Christian religions are based. So far as we know, not one of these pseudo-religions knows of God‘s covenant in which all of creation is represented by and summed up in one man, Adam. Nor do they know of a gracious restoration of all things in and through Jesus Christ, the new Head of the covenant of grace.
Our confession as to God’s revelation implies that we hold both His transcendence and immanence. He is so far above us that we can only know Him if He condescends to speak. And He is so near to us that it is “in him that we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28).
THE TWO KINDS OF REVELATION
We may distinguish between two kinds of revelation: God’s word-revelation and the revelation which comes in the works of His hands. The same glory of the God who speaks to us in Scripture is seen in all created things.
There was a word or speech of God as revelation even before man’s fall into sin. This word-revelation in Paradise is not what we mean when we speak of special revelation. Special revelation is the revelation of redemption in Christ. And this begins after the Fall. All special revelation is word–revelation, but all word–revelation is not special revelation.
Here we come to the question, Why did God come to man after the Fall with a revelation of His redeeming grace? This question is sometimes answered by an appeal to God’s being (“That’s the kind of a God He is”) or to His relationship to things created (“God needed someone with whom to share . . .”). We ought rather to answer this question by ascribing this special revelation solely to His great mercy.
God‘s special word-revelation is received and understood only by those who are renewed by the power of that revelation. As the Bible says, “Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they arc spiritually judged” (1 Cor. 2:14). From the fact that the saving word-revelation is truly known only by believers we derive the name special revelation. It is a revelation by God especially for His people.
God’s revelation in the things He has created and upholds, “the works of his hands,” continued uninterruptedly after the Fall. This revelation is indeed “as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of Go,. even his everlasting power and divinity as the apostle Paul says (Rom. 1:20)” (Belgic Confession, Art. II). There is, therefore, “some knowledge of God” among men. Since this revelation and its effect is indiscriminate it is called general revelation.
In summary: special revelation is that divine self-revelation which speaks of the eternal salvation of God’s people in Christ. General revelation is that divine self-revelation found in the “creation, preservation, and government of the universe,” and which appears to all men without distinction.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO KINDS OF REVELATION
Volumes have been written on this question!
Reformed doctrine always reckons with the thinking of Romanism to which it is a protest. Rome sees the relationship between special and general revelation as one of addition or amplification. The fruit of general revelation is, by itself, a certain true and genuine common knowledge of God which only requires the addition or amplification of that knowledge found in general revelation. Romanist dogmatics is usually divided into these two parts: the first dealing with a “natural theology” gained from nature by way of man‘s reason, the second part with the supernatural knowledge of God gained by faith out of Scripture.
We ought to realize that even before the Fall man could not live happily without God‘s word-revelation, The Word of God, which is the Word of His covenant, the Word which addresses us in terms of our covenantal relationship to God, that Word gave even then the only true light about God and man and about man and the world. Guided by that light man could readily understand God’s revelation in nature, But now, as a result of the Fall, the relationship between God and man is so profoundly affected that there is no possibility that man unaided can gain a true and adequate knowledge of God from the testimony of the works of His hands. Man must always be brought to the knowledge of the truth by the Word of God. It is only in the light of special revelation that we can rightly understand general revelation. As Calvin said:
For, as persons who are old, or whose eyes are by any means become dim, if you show them the most beautiful book, though they perceive some thing written, but can scarcely read two words together, yet, by the assistance of spectacles, will begin to read distinctly—so the Scripture, collecting in our minds the otherwise confused notions of Deity, dispels the darkness, and gives us a clear view of the true God (Institutes, I, 6).
Following Calvin, the Reformed tradition has always stressed the absolute necessity of special revelation for a true knowledge of God and of the things He has made.
In this connection we must say that there are indeed elements of truth in the various world religions. We must maintain, however, the absolute uniqueness of Christianity. Other religions are not to be placed as several rungs on one ladder with it, even when the Christian religion is placed on the top. All elements of truth in non-Christian religions are misused so that men either excuse themselves before God or defend themselves against Him. The heathen do indeed have a kind of knowledge of God but they do not know Him in the Biblical sense. In that true knowledge, which is always a loving fellowship with God, is eternal life (“And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ,” John 17:3).
THE NATURE OF GENERAL REVELATION
Although God‘s word-revelation or special revelation alone can give us the right view of general revelation, we nevertheless speak first of general revelation since it underlies special revelation.
The wrath of God is upon the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men “who hinder the truth in unrighteousness,” wrote Paul to the Romans, and this is only just because “the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse” (Rom. 1:18–20). By the stubborn and rebellious unbelief mentioned above our eyes are more and more closed to this revelation. The result is that the fool says in his heart, there is no God (Ps. 53:1).
We have said, however, that as a fruit of general revelation a kind of knowledge of God is found among men. How is this to be explained? Unbelief has offered several theories. Most of these work with the ideas of an inborn, innate knowledge of God which contrasts with the so–called acquired knowledge. Here we must use some large, technical terms. We do so only to give an impression of the mighty movements which continue to oppose the truth. Believing God only upon the basis of His revelation means that we must endure such opposition!
One of these movements is ratianalism (an idolatrous faith which elevates man‘s reason to a position of ultimate authority), which speaks of certain innate ideas out of which all knowledge must develop. Another is empiricism (a similar idolatry with such familiar mottoes as. “Experience is the best teacher,” and “there is no substitute for experience”), which says that all knowledge comes from observation and that the human soul is like a clean slate upon which our impressions of truth are to be written.
These movements must not be allowed to influence our doctrine of the knowledge of God in any way. There is no such thing as an innate knowledge of God. Nor is our knowledge of God just so many impressions gained by way of experience. All knowledge of God is the fruit of His revelation. The only thing with which we are born is the ability to come to a knowledge of the invisible from the visible. This Paul clearly teaches in Rom. 1:20.
It is an awesome task in our time to stand for the truth that we can know only insofar and because God has revealed Himself to usl
To help with discussion:
1. Is the knowledge of God truly represented in such expressions as “the One upstairs” and “the Supreme Being,” not to mention others of similar character?
2. Should we ask more of a person than the statement, “I believe that there is a God?” 3. Is there a knowledge of God gained from sources other than general or special revelation? Does God speak directly to us today? 4. If all revelation employs the means found in “nature,” how can it at the same time reveal Him who is far above all things created? 5. Is scientific information gained from nature equally infallible with Scripture? 6. What kind of grace makes it possible for man to have some knowledge of God and some regard for virtue? 7. Does the fact that God in His mercy has not left Himself without witness conflict with or offset the realities of man‘s depravity and sinfulness? 8. Do you see any possible misuse of John Calvin‘s use of the illustration of a weak-eyed person as quoted above?
LESSON 4
God’s Revelation (B)
Four topics comprise this lesson: the So-Called Proofs for the Existence of God, the Value of General Revelation, the Nature of Special Revelation, the Media of Special Revelation. Lesson 4 concludes our study of general revelation and introduces the subject of special revelation.
THE SO–CALLED PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
We speak of “so-called proofs” because we do not believe that man can possibly establish the fact of God’s existence by his own reason apart from revelation. Although we can describe God as revealed in the Scriptures and in nature, we can never define Him. There is persistent interest in this kind of “proof”—especially among bright young people!—and so we offer here a brief summary description of these “proofs.”
a. The Ontological Argument: (Ontology seeks to know the nature of being or existence.) This argument tries to work from the fact of the idea of God in man to the conclusion that God must exist. We unavoidably think, it says, of a highest being to which we ascribe all the attributes of being in the highest possible sense. It must follow that this being has existence because if it did not exist we would necessarily conceive of a still higher being which did have the attribute of existence. That would conflict, of course, with the starting point of our argument which was the idea of the highest being. The fault of this argumentation is that we deal with the beyond-our-thinking-existence of God as an attribute of something which we conceive.
In all of these arguments the question that remains is: Do they really prove the existence of the God of the Scriptures? In the Bible God is not only more than but quite different from anything we might conceive. Fact is that to gain a true knowledge of God we cannot proceed from man and his finite. sin–blinded reason but must turn in faith to God Himself as the Creator in whom we live and move and have our being.
b. The Cosmological Argument: Here we proceed from the law of cause and effect. All things have a cause. The ultimate cause must be God. Charles Hodge refined this argument somewhat when he cast it into this syllogistic form: “Every effect must have an adequate cause. The world is an effect. Therefore the world must have had a cause outside of itself and adequate to account for its existence.”
Hodge’s effort is commendable in that it tries to reduce the scope of the argument to make it more compatible with the idea of God as Creator. However, this argument can never prove the existence of the living God as He is revealed in the Scriptures. In other words, if you already believe, this argument might have some validity for you. But if you do not believe that God is, the argument is not only less than compelling, it actually fails to prove more than the existence of an Uncaused Cause.
c. The Teleological Argument: In contrast with the previous arguments, this one reckons with the end or purpose of all things rather than their origins. It argues that world events are not a mere sequence of accidental happenings. There is an obvious direction in life, things are moving toward a goal. That purpose must have been established by God. But isn’t it possible that we are mistaken when we think that we recognize such a goal; and, isn‘t there much in life that seems to be purposeless? Modern man is so impressed with evidences of purposelessness and irrationality in life that he has become very interested in the occult, the demonic, etc.
d. The Historical Argument: When we try to write history, that is, put history’s events into a pattern of meaning and understanding, we proceed from the presupposition that history is not so many loosestanding events but that it reveals a certain process and development. This process must be something instituted and controlled by God. Again: for those who believe, this is very acceptable. But it is not a compelling argument for God’s existence since it does not answer this objection: Is it not possible that we are superimposing our ideas on history rather than finding the patterns supposedly instituted by God?
e. The Moral Argument: Our very existence in society requires that good be rewarded and evil punished. Now this does not always happen. World history is by no means world judgment. That means that a iudgment must take place after history. Surely the only One who could so judge would be God. Our existence does call for such an administration of moral justice, but is this proof that it will occur?
f. The Common Awareness of God Argument: This “proof” proceeds from the observation that all peoples believe in the existence of God. It is unlikely that this is mistaken (that many people can hardly be wrong!). This common awareness of God’s existence must have been produced by God and proves His existence. Again: those of us who accept by faith Romans 1:20 have little trouble believing this. However, unbelievers abound in our day who point to c~eric;ll or priestly deception as the source of man‘s so-called awareness of God, or to man‘s invention of God to meet his obvious need for help in his terrifying battle with the powers of nature.
A few comments as we close our brief statement of the several arguments for the existence of God. We have tried to indicate that as irrefutable arguments for God’s existence they fall far short. We might add, however, that it is also impossible to prove that God does not exist Unless our reason is governed by faith in the Word lof God it lacks all certainty. And if that certainty of faith is present, believers tend to regard proofs (or the existence of God as unnecessary. As we have indicated, there is some supportive value in these proofs especially as they give evidence of the working of God’s revelation.
THE VALUE OF GENERAL REVELATION
Please remember that in these lessons we are stressing the need to know God as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. When we speak here of the several reasons why general revelation is insufficient we are not depreciating its value or denying its integrity. General revelation does indeed leave man “without excuse,” and it does furnish the foundation or back ground For special revelation. We will return to summarize the value of general revelation in a moment.
As we have said earlier, however, even in Paradise man could not get along without God’s word-revelation. God spoke to man as his covenant Friend, and this speech revealed to him that which he needed to know to read general revelation aright. After the Fall general revelation is even less adequate than it ever was because:
a. Our understanding is darkened so that we do not understand God’s revelation in nature. The Psalmist declares, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they . . . God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek after God. Everyone of them is gone back . . .” (Ps. 53:1–3).
b. Nature itself has been spoiled by sin so that apart from the light of special revelation we find ourselves confronted with many insoluble problems.
c. General revelation does not tell us of the way of salvation.
The positive value of general revelation may be summarized this way:
a. It serves to restrain the dissoluteness and unrighteousness of men.
b. It makes possible communication between believer and unbeliever.
c. It moves the believer to praise God for His greatness and glory as revealed in the works of His hands.
THE NATURE Of SPECIAL REVELATION
Special revelation is organic rather than eclectic in character. In the Mother Promise (Gen. 3:15, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”) the redemption through Christ is principally revealed. The whole Gospel is there in seed or germ form. Nothing essentially new has ever been added. All later revelation is a development or unfolding of that which is given in Genesis 3:15.
God’s special revelation comes to its richer unfolding in connection with different times and circumstances and with the development of mankind in history. Revelation bears a historical character. For that reason it is possible to speak of and to write a history of revelation.
Special revelation includes both word and deed. This is due to the fact that it intends not only to furnish a certain kind of knowledge but also to accomplish the actual redemption of the world and mankind. The Bible is not to be viewed merely as a revelation of doctrine (orthodoxism) nor of practise (moralism).
As to the relationship between word and deed we must say that the deed is the fulfillment of the word. God calls the things that are not as if they were. He is the God of the Scriptures who can be trusted to do what His Word declares.
It is very important to understand, however, that apart from the evangelical explanation of God’s wonderful works we would not know either that His Word has been fulfilled or what His works really mean.
THE MEDIA OF REVELATION
By way of the following media God has brought His special revelation to us:
a. Appearances: of God, of angels, of the Angel of the Lord, and at its highest, the appearance of God in Jesus Christ. (“Appearance” or theophany is not something unreal but rather some earthly form assumed by God to make His revelation known. The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is regarded as the appearance of the Second Person of the Trinity.)
b. Prophetic communication: by casting the lot, the Urim and Thummim, by dreams and visions, by audible voice, and by inner illumination. The high point of this prophetic revelation is also in Christ who is the Word of God (John 1:1).
c. Miracles: these are signs of God’s special presence. It is especially in exceptional times that these occur. The central wonder of wonders is the incarnation of our Lord at Bethlehem.
A caricature of these means by which God spoke in His special revelation is found in superstition, fortune telling, sorcery (the presumed use of powers gained from the assistance or control of evil spirits), and witchcraft (revelation gained by way of a medium thought to be able to communicate with the devil or the dead). These are much in evidence today, and ought by all means to be rejected!
To help with discussion:
1. Why do you suppose that Roman Catholic theology would be interested in the so-called proofs for the existence of God? 2. A prominent Reformed theologian ( H. Hoeksema) says, “The richest and most beautiful of all the so-called proofs for the existence of God is the teleological. It means to lead us up not only to a certain Super-power over or final Cause of the world, but to a personal designer of all things, possessed of intellect and will, of knowledge and wisdom.” (Reformed Dogmatics, p. 45. ) Do you agree? (This must not be taken to mean that Hoeksema recognizes the argumentation of these proofs as valid.) 3. Does the fact that sin darkens human understanding mean that man is incapable of truly logical thought? 4. What does it mean that the sinner “says in his heart” that God does not exist? 5. Is the working presence of God’s general revelation a kind of grace on the part of God to man in general? 6. Do you feel that there is less restraint of sin in our day than there might have been in other times?7. What is the Urim and Thummim? May we use the lot tod ay? What bearing does this have on games of chance as a legitimate Christian activity?
8. Do miracles in the revelational sense occur today? May we count on the miraculous to help us in the time of need? Is there a difference between the miraculous and God’s special care for His children? 9. Why is there such a pronounced interest in things mysterious today?