The existence of God has been a concern of debate among theologians and philosophers over time. It is so crucial that the entire faith of Christians is anchored on the existence of what they believe is the reality of a Higher Being- a Supreme One at that, who has revealed himself to humanity in a lot more ways so we could grasp or somehow understand his existence.
Christians believe that God has revealed himself so the sinful man could somehow have a proof of his authenticity. However, we have to make a clear distinction here that not all professing Christians agree on the mode of God revealing himself to his creatures. Theologians have argued on this matter and they themselves have their own convictions as to the hows of it. Majority of believers concur to the idea that God has revealed himself in two ways: the general revelation, where the knowledge of God is available in nature, history and the constitution of the human being (Erickson, p. 179); and special revelation which deals with God’s manifestation of himself to particular persons at particular times, leading them to a redemptive relationship with God (Erickson, p. 201).
Erickson discussed natural theology having the idea that “it is possible, without a prior commitment of faith to the beliefs of Christianity, and without relying on any special authority, to come to a genuine knowledge of God on the basis of reason alone, such as an institution (the church) or a document (the Bible), which refers to the human capacity to discover, understand, interpret and evaluate the truth” (Erickson, p.181).
On the other side, Karl Barth, a famous theologian scrapped the idea of both general revelation and natural theology stating that the knowledge of God is confined in Jesus because by nature, revelation is redemptive. There is then no salvific power that can be seen neither in the case of general revelation nor in natural theology. A moderate view of this is Thomas Aquinas’ idea that it is possible to prove God’s existence by pure reason through cosmological and teleological arguments but he did not discredit special revelation in trying to assert his convictions.
However, the problem with general revelation as a means to a genuine knowledge of God has spawned a lot of disputes and discussions especially with the idea of natural theology. Taking things into consideration, the definition of natural theology is likely, I believe, to bluntly disregard the idea of the Bible being the Word of God where we can understand and know him in a way that general revelation nor pure reason cannot guarantee. The possibility to come to a genuine knowledge of God in this case is unfeasible. No matter what it is, reason can only say much and can give us so little of what we need so as to know what God is like. The idea it could give us about God would not suffice for us to come into a realization that we need him. It could only make us believe that there is indeed a Creator but it won’t lead us to seeking him for who he is and wanting to live in him and for him. It is not to say that reason cannot do anything. It is one thing to come to a realization that indeed there is a higher Being, probably, a supreme one, who made all things to come into existence, but it is another thing to know his personality and a lot more about him through the mode of special revelation.
History serves as a witness that man has been searching for that Higher Power and that millions have endeavored to do so, yet, their attempts led them to becoming polytheistic. They have become idolatrous because, their search for the ‘Supreme Being’ unfortunately led them to deceptive religions which disregard the Creator God of the Bible. This is the reason why countless cults and religions of different sorts throughout history have come and gone. The influx of world religions, searching and seeking for the authentic God was caused by man’s desire to complete his awareness and knowledge of Him. Millions believe that there is a Supreme Being, yet, knowing the reality of who and what God is has caused a lot of confusion among them. Down the road, millions of people seeking for the truth sadly turned into agnostics or even worse, atheists.
If a genuine knowledge of God can be found in pure reason, then why is it that through reason itself, millions have become skeptics of the existence of God, if not atheists? It is not then proper to label reason as a perfect manner to come to a genuine knowledge of God. Reason can be misleading sometimes and if caught unaware, could be simultaneously deceptive and destructive.
Granting that general revelation is enough to come to a genuine knowledge of God, the problem now lies heavily on the purpose of special revelation especially as we talk about the incarnation of God the Son. It is a deliberate disregard to the reason for which Christ came. We must keep in mind that God has laid out his plan for his Son to come so we would understand more how he would want to keep his relationship with us. Beyond doubt, to say that special revelation, in all its forms and ways, is limiting the work of God if not playing God himself.
I cannot but reject the notion of natural theology about the possibility of acquiring an unadulterated understanding of God without the Bible or the guidance of the church. It is a conscious rejection of God’s message to his people through the Scriptures and through Christ, who is the perfect revelation of God himself. To quote Hebrews 1: 1-3a, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being..”
These passage clearly indicates that the particular revelation of God, in Christ is a necessity and cannot be brushed aside. Those who disdain the particular revelation of God should rethink of what they definitely mean in saying that general revelation is enough to have a genuine knowledge of God, when God himself thinks otherwise.
The problem with natural theology is that it depends solely on reason to come to a genuine knowledge of God, and the fact that reason as it is defined here is the human capacity to discover, understand, interpret and evaluate truth. The statement here is problematic in itself. It wasn’t able to clearly delineate what a genuine knowledge of God really means. Secondly, the dilemma is that it is difficult to rely on human reason to do all these arduous tasks because we have to be reminded that humanity is marred by sin and this hinders us from delineating the truth from the lies, from discovering and uncovering facts and distinguish them from fictitious beliefs.
Nevertheless, categorically denying the need for special revelation is tantamount to believing that the incarnation of Christ is uncalled-for, which is a deliberate blasphemy to the Christian faith and would lead to the dispensability of the cross. It does not guarantee salvation for humanity and would never lead our souls to be at peace with God.
Karl Barth was quick to refute this idea believing that the knowledge of God is solely confined in special revelation. He was convinced that revelation in its very essence should be redemptive. In this case, neither general revelation nor natural theology satisfactorily fit in the category. This idea of Barth, seemed to be influenced by his background and he tried to fit in his belief on revelation in order to attack the Nazi Government in Germany (Erickson, p. 188). At the outset, the predicament in this thought is that it has become subjective. And just for this reason, Barth has totally disregarded that nature can give us a glimpse of the reality of a higher Being.
However, interpretations of passages which speak literally of man’s idea of a Supreme Being, whom Scripture writers call God, cannot be vilified. And Barth has no excuse but to come to terms with this truth. I am in total disagreement with Barth’s proposition for I am firm that God’s disclosure of himself, whether it be general or special is redemptive in its purpose. Barth, like natural theologians, was not able to demarcate as well what knowledge of God has to mean.
Revelation is God’s way of communicating with his people. Whether it be general or special revelation, the aim of the whole of it is for man to have an idea of God which the general revelation provides; and from that idea, man will be able to enter into a redemptive relationship with Him which special revelation furnishes, specifically, through the incarnation of Christ and through His revealed Word. I see no reason for the two not to go together and affirm each other since the whole “revelation plan” of God is encapsulated in these two modes. General revelation bridges our way to the special revelation of God. There are truths about who God is as we can see in his general revelation and these truths affirms the legitimacy of what God is as established by the special revelation.
Passages in the Bible definitely warrant that general revelation is a way in which man can have an idea of the existence of a Person greater than him. This is succinctly expressed in Rom. 1:20 where it says, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” It is therefore unacceptable to say that general revelation has no use in giving us an idea of a Supreme Being, for even the Scriptures, which is a mode of God’s special revelation of himself, affirms this statement.
What we need to do instead is to believe that these two modes of revelation are co-dependent and complementary with each other. They need each other in order to reveal the purposes of God in humanity. Both are redemptive in purpose for each gives reason to believe in God and know the purpose for which he has revealed himself. It cannot be said that only special revelation is redemptive in purpose because the climax of it is the incarnation of God himself in Christ. We have to keep in mind that general revelation is in itself a prelude for the plan of redemption and a crucial part of God to make himself known.
I firmly believe that having an idea of God and having a clear knowledge of him is what differentiates special and general revelation. To distinguish these two: General revelation gives us an idea of the existence of a Supreme Being but its insufficiency leads us to the special revelation of God, which is enough to introduce us to a deeper knowledge and lead us into a redemptive relationship with God. Though they are different in mode, it cannot be denied that they are similar in purpose.
God definitely made himself known to man. Wherever we go, we can see the glory of himself through his works. And when we look back at the cross, for which we see the love of God himself as revealed in Jesus his Son, the more we understand how great and how immeasurable his wonder is.
Be as it is, still, we cannot say that we fully know and understand him. General and special revelations nonetheless give mystery to the Supreme Being we call the God of the Bible, for his ways and his mind is unfathomable. However, as we continue to live our precious lives for God, we ought to be reminded that sinful as we are, God loved us this much to rescue us from the pit of destruction and he has made the first step for our relationship with him to be renewed. We can just thank him that our inadequacies and transgressions did not stop him from revealing his glory and holiness to us albeit our trespasses.
Copyright, Erland De Vera Palean
March, 2009
sidenotes are from Erickson's Systematic Theology book, 3rd. ed.
No comments:
Post a Comment