Bibliology: General Revelation

Introduction 

A rough definition of revelation is content that explains something that was unknown. The word is usually used within the context of theology signifying something being made known about God’s character, works, or decrees. General Revelation is the first of two major categories of revelation. The second category of revelation is Divine Revelation. General Revelation is defined as “That disclosure to all persons at all times and places by which one comes to know that God is, and what He is like. General revelation mediates the conviction that God exists and that He is self-sufficient, transcendent, imminent, eternal, powerful, wise, good, and righteous. General, or natural, revelation maybe divided into two categories: (1) internal, the innate sense of beauty and consciousness, and (2) external, nature and providential history.”1

These two forms of General Revelation can be used to form a branch of theology known as Natural Theology. Natural Theology is a set of proofs used to demonstrate the existence of God using evidence from General Revelation. “The traditional proofs for the existence of God that have been constructed by Christian philosophers at various points in history are in fact attempts to analyze the evidence, especially the evidence from nature, in extremely carefully and logically precise ways, in order to persuade people that it is not rational to reject the idea of God’s existence. If it is true that sin causes people to think irrationally, then these proofs are attempts to cause people to think rationally or correctly about the evidence for God's existence, in spite of the irrational tendency caused by sin.”2

A lot of criticism falls on these proofs that try to demonstrate the existence of God. The main reason people argue is that these proofs are not expressly given in Scripture. Another is that the Bible never tries to demonstrate that God exists. The Bible starts with the assumption that God exists from the beginning, “In the beginning God created” (Gen. 1:1). While these criticisms make a good point it should be noted that the Bible does verify these proofs that are used by alluding to them. Of course the Bible will not give these arguments the same name as we would today. One should also notice that these arguments were even used by the Apostle Paul on three separate occasions. Lastly, God gave us a mind so that we could use to glorify God. Man is not an animal with only brutish needs. Man was created in the Image of God and is meant to use his faculties that God has given him through the Image of God (i.e. reason). 

External Proofs

The following three arguments or proofs are broader categories of arguments that are used to demonstrate the existence of God using evidence from nature. Both the believer and the unbeliever observe the same facts of nature (e.g., gravity, motion, complexity of life, etc.) but yet come to different conclusions. The point of all of these arguments is that if one were to observe and deduce correctly from these facts of nature, then the denial of God’s existence becomes absurd. 

The verification for these arguments comes from Psalm 19:1-6. All of nature shows forth His handiwork (v. 1). Every man upon the earth has seen His handiwork (vv. 2-4). There is beauty in His handiwork (vv. 5-6).

Cosmological Argument

“The cosmological argument is a family of arguments that seek to demonstrate the existence of a Sufficient Reason or a First Cause of the the existence of the cosmos.”3 In short, something or Someone must have caused the universe to come in to existence. You can not get something from nothing.

The cosmological argument has been broken down further into three basic types. 1) The kalam cosmological argument which, “Aims to show that universe had a beginning at some finite past and, since something cannot come out of nothing, must therefore have transcendent cause, which brought the universe into being.”4 2) The Thomist cosmological argument “named for the medieval philosophical theologian Thomas Aquinas, seeks a cause that is first, not in the temporal sense, but in the sense of rank.”5 Thomas did this in his “five ways:” motion, efficient cause, contingency, gradation of value, and unintelligent object move in ways that have a purpose.6 And finally, 3) Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz used an argument based upon contingency, like one Thomas Aquinas’ five ways but Leibniz did it without Aristotelian metaphysics. Leibniz wrote, “The first question which should rightly be asked is this: why is there something rather than nothing?”7

Teleological Argument

The teleological argument is the most popular of the three. The teleological argument states that because there is an design in the universe, there must have been an ultimate Designer. Its popularity has increased over the recent years to due advances from Christian scientists being outspoken in their field. These Christian Scientists have paved the way for the Intelligent Design movement which is an alternative theory for the origin of species as opposed to Darwin’s theory of evolution. 

The teleological argument was first made popular by William Paley in his book titled, Natural Theology, which he presented the example of a watch that was found in the middle of the field. A watch has parts that move and parts that signify something. The purpose of a watch is to keep track of time. By examining a watch, one would agree that a watch was designed for that purpose. Therefore because the watch was designed, there must have been a designer of the watch. It is absurd to think that the watch came into existence in the middle of field for the express purpose that it should keep track of time by mere chance.

Today, many scientists in the field of biology are helping to further demonstrate the point of the teleological argument. Michael Behe, an associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, helped with his discussion on irreducibly complex systems. 

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.8

Behe then goes to give multiply examples. The most intriguing is the body’s ability to have blood clot when in need. 

The thought of the teleological argument can be seen in Scripture. There is the allusion to it in Psalm 94:9-10. The ear was designed to hear, therefore the designer had that end in mind when He made the ear. Paul told the people of Lystra that, “He left not himself without witness, in that He did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). God designed the earth to support life. All of the systems on earth depend each other. Man depends on his crops for food. The crops depend on the rain to grow. 

Ontological Argument

Of the three external proofs, this is the most ill received and the most philosophical. The ontological argument is based upon the study of ontology, that is the study of the nature of being. The ontological argument was originally conceived by Anselm. The point of his argument is that one can prove God exists because the nature of God’s being–self evident and necessary. “Anselm argued that once a person truly understands the notion of a greatest conceivable being, then he will see that such being must exist, since if it did not, it would not be the greatest conceivable being.”9

The criticism for the this argument has been that just because one can conceive of the greatest possible being, does not mean that greatest possible being actually exists. There is a difference between conception and the real world. We can think of many things, but those do not necessarily exist. 

The response to the above criticism is that part of the definition of the greatest possible being is that his existence is necessary in all possible worlds. If there were a possibility that the greatest possible being could not exist, then he would not be the greatest possible being. His existence is necessary in every possible world and therefore is necessary in the real world and really does exist.10

There is a different argument for the existence that I would label as an ontological argument because it argues from the uniqueness of the being of mankind. It is also known as the anthropological argument. Man is very different from the rest of creation on earth. Only man philosophizes. Only man creates and appreciates different mediums of art (e.g. music, paintings, etc.). You will never see cheetah sit down argue about different theories of justice. There is something that is truly unique the being of man. This is of course due to the Image of God that man bares. The question then becomes, “How can man, a moral, intelligent, and living being, be explained apart from a moral, intelligent, and living God?”11 The creation of man therefore necessitates a Creator that had all of these same qualities at the very least.

Paul makes reference to the anthropological argument in his sermon to those at Athens. “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of you own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’ Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold or silver, or stone, graven by man’s device” (Acts 17:28-29). Because man has the qualities of love, reason, etc., God, who created man, must also possess these qualities as well or even better. 

Internal Proofs

Paul wrote, “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them” (Rom. 1:19). Many have taken this to mean that there is an innate sense of God within man. “That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead.”12 This may be the case. I understand what Paul wrote to mean that man knows that God exists but is willing to deny God’s existence so man can keep his immorality (Rom. 1:32).

C.S. Lewis talked of another internal proof for God using the “Law of Nature.” “This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it.”13 The idea is that all mankind has a sense of morality that is built into him. His secondary point was that we choose to not obey the Law of Nature. This lead him to the proposition that, “In the Moral Law somebody or something from beyond the material universe was actually getting at us.” He concludes with, “It is after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power–it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know are sick, you will listen to the doctor.”14

This is parallel to what Paul writes in Romans talking about the gentiles, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things” (Rom. 2:1-2). Man knows the law of God and continues to disobey them. 

Effects of General Revelation

Paul states it clearly, “For 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: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:20-21). Every man, in every place, at every time has seen the invisible things of God. But the vast majority of mankind has rejected God. This rejection of God condemns man. 

As for these proofs that are made from the evidence of God’s existence in nature and in ourselves, they are useful. To what degree of use is subject to debate. Some state that the arguments are solid enough to show that unbelief in God is logically unsound. Others say that these arguments are only enough to show that theism has a high probability of being correct. Most are not willing to say that they demonstrate with absolute certainty that God exists.

Limitations of General Revelation

One of the limitations of these arguments is that they can only convince a person that monotheism is a correct worldview. There are still multiple religions that prescribe faith in only one God/god. Islam is a monotheistic faith. The kalām cosmological argument was originally used by muslims. Even though the arguments are convincing, they do not completely give us the God described in the Bible. 

Another limitation is that a man will never be argued into believing the Christian faith. The Bible clearly states that a man coming to know salvation through Jesus Christ is a work of God (John 1:12-13). A person repenting of their sins requires the regeneration of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5).

The last limitation with general revelation is that it is not enough. In order for a person to know the God of the Bible, the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, he must have the Bible. There is so much that general revelation does not explain about God. General revelation may show there is a God has written the “Law of Nature” that we have broken, but it does not explain how can be saved from the wrath of God for breaking His laws.

___________________

1. Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 944. 

2. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 143. 

3. J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 465. 

4. Ibid. The kalam cosmological argument was originally used by Muslims and then adopted for the Christian faith. This argument has been popularized by William Lane Craig in his book, The Kalām Cosmological Argument. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1979.   

5. Ibid. Thomas Aquinas summarized the “five ways” in his book Summa Theologica.

6. Peter Kreeft, ed., Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica Edited and Explained for Beginners (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1990), 61-9.

7. Moreland and Craig, 466. 

8. Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York, NY: The Free Press, 1996), 39.

9. Moreland and Craig, 496. 

10. This demonstration of God being necessary in every possible world comes from Alvin Plantinga. 

11. Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 35. 

12. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:3:1.

13. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2002), 15.

14. Ibid, 33-5.