General & Special Revelation
A Match Made In Heaven

Written by Jeff Yeager

General revelation is the term given to God’s revelation to all mankind through creation.  This includes both the external universe, which mankind can experience through the senses, and the internal ‘universe’ of the human soul, mind and conscience.  Natural theology is the term given to the knowledge of God that can be deduced from general revelation{1}.  It may seem controversial to say that something can be known about God apart from scriptures, but there is actually quite a strong tradition of natural theology that we can trace back to the apostle Paul, Aristotle and Aquinas to name a few.
 
There are differing opinions on the role and the extent of natural theology; from the idea that all of God’s knowable attributes 

can be ascertained directly from nature, thereby superseding scripture; to the position of David Hume, that no knowledge of God can be ascertained with any certainty from nature; then the more moderate position of Bishop Butler that Natural and Revealed theology are two parts of the same truth{2}.  Indeed, later on the likes of Samuel Clarke{3} and William Paley{4} held that the wisdom, power, and even the goodness of God were attributes demonstrable via natural theology.

Scripture itself makes the case for general revelation. 

…although He did not leave Himself without a witness, since He did good: giving you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, and satisfying your hearts with food and happiness.  (Acts 14:17)

The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the sky proclaims the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)

So, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, instinctively do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law.  They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences testify in support of this, and their competing thoughts either accuse or excuse them… (Romans 2:14-15)

Perhaps the clearest scriptural endorsement of natural theology is this well-known passage in Romans:

For God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and unrighteousness of people who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. From the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.   (Ro 1:18-20)

It’s clear that Paul was saying that at least some attributes of God can be derived from nature and reason alone.  In fact, his statement that ‘people are without excuse’ doesn’t just imply the view that nature holds revelatory authority, but demands it.  However, care must be taken when deriving theology from general revelation.  The doctrine of total depravity tells us that the fall affects all areas of our being.  This obviously includes human reasoning.  While not invalidating natural theology (or Paul couldn’t have written verse 20), it gives us reason for great caution.

Rather than delve into the big question of how far we can take our knowledge of God based on nature and reason, let us simply make the point that Paul’s statement presupposes that what can be seen in nature is reliable and authoritative.  If this weren’t the case Paul couldn’t say that the testimony of God through nature is ‘clearly seen’ and people are ‘without excuse.’  This has important implications in the area of scientific apologetics.  If a person holds to the incorrect opinion that truth is contained only in Scripture, then the tools of science and logic won’t find their way into their apologetic toolbox.  Since the case has been made that what we can see, test, and measure in nature is true, and the case can be made that logic is an essential attribute of God, It’s important that Christians ascribe proper authority to nature and logic (including science), as well as Scripture in their pursuit and defense of truth.

Since God’s general and special revelations are both authoritative when properly applied, and since they both derive their existence from the same unchanging God, we can conclude that science and Scripture should never ultimately disagree.  This, of course, is predicated on the application of good science and good Biblical hermeneutics.  It then follows that when science and scripture overlap, and one or the other is ambiguous, that the other source of revelation can be used to resolve that ambiguity.  If this holds true, then all apparent contradictions between the two must be the result of an interpretive error. 

In the 16th century, there was an apparent contradiction between natural and special revelation.  The geocentric view of the solar system prevailed.  The theological establishment used certain Biblical passages as evidence of this ‘fact.’  We all agree now, since the Copernican revolution, that this was an erroneous conclusion.  This is a case of science (natural revelation) correcting an error of Biblical interpretation.

In more recent history we see the opposite error.  Many Christians have adopted a view of theistic evolution in regard to the development of life on Earth.  This is the result of a belief that the scientific theory of Darwinian evolution has overwhelming evidence in its favor.  Often the attempt to reconcile the two has led to a revision in the historical (orthodox) view of Scripture.  This gives science the credence it deserves, but diminishes the authority afforded Scripture.  In recent years, a groundswell of new scientific thinking is reevaluating the theory of evolution in light of the current state of science and we see now that science was wrongly applied and interpreted.  This could be seen as a case of Scripture correcting an error of scientific interpretation.  This shift may not be precipitated by a renewed belief in the authority of scripture so much as recognition of the interpretive errors of science in the past 150 years, i.e., science correcting science.  However, the atmosphere of skepticism among some in the conservative Christian community facilitated the continual reevaluation of data, which has lead to these recent breakthroughs.  The net effect should lead to a renewed trust in the authority of Scripture.

Historically, it has been the orthodox Christian view that both nature and scripture (as far as they go) are authoritative revelations from the same God.  In retrospect, since the enlightenment, science has been seen as a foe rather than a friend of Christianity.  This conflict has resulted in an increasingly low opinion of science by some Christians, or has resulted in a cognitive disconnect between the two giving rise to various liberal theories of scripture.  With recent advances in science it’s becoming clear that the so-called scientific challenges to Biblical truth arising out of the enlightenment were the result of bad science, and at times bad Biblical hermeneutics. 

This perspective has strong implications to us in the area of apologetics.  Just as Paul argued to the Greeks from their own concept of the ‘unknown god,’ and to the Jews from their own authoritative scriptures, we too should begin by engaging people where we find common ground.  In our secular, naturalistic culture, a view of science as authoritative is often the only common ground a believer can find with an unbeliever.  Since we believe that good science embodies authoritative revelation from God, this makes scientific apologetics a great starting point for most apologetic/evangelistic encounters.

Notes

1. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nattheol.htm)
2. Analogy of Religion, London, 1736
3. Samuel Clarke, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, London, 1-105
4. William Paley, Natural Theology, ib. 1802

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are taken from the Holman Christian Standard Bible®.

© 2008 LifeWay Christian Resources

Share your thoughts with other readers:  Post Comments   Rate this Article