One of my major passions in life is theology. I have enjoyed taking Systematic Theology this past year. I loved taking it in my undergrad and I loved it now. I hope this is an area that the Lord will allow me to continue studying, even though I believe my calling to be counselling.
Some of my friends were interested in reading my first Major Research Paper for systematic theology. I wrote it on Natural Revelation (also known as General Revelation or Natural Theology). I am sharing it with you here. I hope it is educational and can help you grow somehow.
I will admit that I have a terrible style of academic writing. I apologize for the dryness of it and it it's hard to follow. I got a decent mark on it, so I'm hoping it's not heretical or that hard to follow. Also, for my friends who are picky with Turabian...I'm sorry; this paper must be your worst nightmare! lol. I apologize.
Well, enjoy.
Calvin and Company Versus Barth on
Natural Revelation
Introduction
The question “Does
God reveal himself through nature?” has come with many answers throughout
theology’s history. This paper will explore two answers to this question: yes
and no. The latter was a position taken by Karl Barth, while the former was a
position formed by John Calvin. The title of this paper indicates that along
with Calvin, a company of other theologians who have agreed with his position
will also be revealed throughout this discussion. The position of this paper is
in agreement with Calvin and will thus attempt to argue Barth’s beliefs of
natural revelation. The first section of this paper will reveal Calvin and
other theologians who agreed with him on natural revelation. This section will
define natural revelation, provide a brief history and also address how natural
revelation is limited to come a knowledge of God. The second section of this
paper will reveal Barth’s position on natural revelation. In addition, a
personal response to Barth’s objection will be discussed. In conclusion, having
the foundation and arguments for natural revelation, the last section will
provide an application of natural revelation for Christians, not unbelievers.
Calvin
and Company on Natural Revelation
Based on Biblical
passages like Psalms 19, Acts 17 and Romans 1, the doctrine of natural
revelation has been developed.
According to some theologians like Augustine, Calvin, Emile Brunner and Wayne
Grudem, such passages are interpreted to mean that humans can come to knowledge
of God’s existence through the impact of nature. Grudem in particular believes
that the intricacy of the human body bears witness to God’s character. In
the same sense, not only humans, but also the rest of the universe gives glory
to God and bears witness of His existence.
Thus the impact of nature communicates to all humans that there is a
superior being that must have designed this universe. “All persons everywhere
have a deep, inner sense that God exists, that they are his creatures, and that
he is their Creator.” Calvin
stated that all humans hold a sense of deity, which is engraved in their heart. As
a result, God prevents men and women from being completely ignorant of His
existence by giving them a sense of deity.
This sense of deity is also known as the sensus
divinitatus (SD). The SD is a-if not the- major aspect of natural revelation.
Natural revelation is universal, or in other words, general for all people. Calvin
stated that the SD is universally distributed to all humans throughout history.
For this reason, natural revelation is also known as general revelation.
Some
believe that Calvin’s theory on the SD derived from Hellenistic philosophical
teaching of the ‘preconception’ (prolepsis) of God. “Preconception” was created
by Epicurus, but was more developed by the Stoics. It is believed that Calvin
adopted “preconception” from Cicero’s
“On the Nature of the Gods”. Cicero defined
“preconception” as “a sort of preconceived mental picture of a thing, without
which nothing can be understood or investigated or discussed”. For
the Stoics, preconceptions were common to all humans. Some ‘preconceptions’
could be considered to be traits, like justice and honour. Therefore, in
relation to the Stoic theory and according to Calvin, the SD is a preconception
that God places in the hearts of all humans.
Of
course, the latter is merely an idea of where Calvin would have originated the
SD concept. Calvin was not merely a philosopher, but a theologian who derived
his ideas from interpreting the Scriptures and not so much concerned with
remoulding ancient philosophical ideas. Throughout history, the concept of
natural theology has taken on different forms, but it continues to reappear
outside the church (ex. Philosophy) and inside the church (ex. Augustine using
it against paganism). Finally, in the middle ages, there was a resurfacing of
Aristotelianism and thus, natural theology was more developed.
As
already discussed, Calvin believed that the SD is common to all humans. The SD
gives an awareness of God’s existence. In his Institutes, Calvin states: “Therefore,
since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in
short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit
confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all”. By
“heart”, Calvin meant to say the place where reasoning is found. Actually,
Calvin stated that the SD is located in the mind.
Edward Adams explains: “The sensus is not simply a gut feeling, intuition or
vague impression, but a cognition, an intellectual consciousness of God the
creator. Calvin describes it as a ‘deep-seated conviction that there is a God’
and a ‘certain understanding of his divine majesty’”.
Some
theologians like John Calvin, Paul Helm and Edward Adams believe that the SD
already existed before the Fall. In his Institutes’ of Christian Religion,
Calvin begins his discussion of natural revelation by stating that if Adam
would not have sinned, the SD would have served as witness to humanity of God’s
existence and consequently would have compelled us to worship Him. Thus, the SD
could have been sufficient to establish communion with God.
However,
the SD does not function now in the way that God probably intended it to in the
beginning. Because of sin, the SD has been smeared and corrupted. According
to Paul Helm (not Calvin), the SD was supposed to lead us to believe that one
is made in the image of God and that He owns us and this world.
However, because the SD is now corrupt, it can no longer take one to a full
knowledge of God. Aquinas
explains:
Our knowledge starts from
sense-perception and reaches only as far as things so perceived can lead us,
which is not far enough to see God in himself. For the things we can sense,
though effects of God, are not effects fully expressing his power. But because
they do depend on him as their cause, they can lead us to know that he exists,
and reveal to us whatever is true of him as first cause of all such things,
surpassingly different from all of them. By God’s grace, we can know him better
than by natural reason alone…
Because Aquinas was before Calvin’s
time and before the term SD was coined, the SD was not mentioned in the latter
quote, nevertheless, Aquinas is still addressing the knowledge of God that one
receives from nature. Natural revelation cannot give humanity a full knowledge of
God; only special revelation can. Michael Horton explains that nature is only a
witness to God’s existence, but it is not a redemptive revelation. Natural
revelation only gives us an awareness of God’s existence but it does not give
us knowledge of who God is and what He has done for us. Natural revelation is
given to all humans throughout history, but special revelation is particular in
that it is only given to a small percentage of individuals throughout history. More
about special revelation will be discussed later in this paper. For now, more
about the SD’s corruption needs to be addressed.
The
Fall did not erase the SD but it did corrupt it. Even though the SD is corrupt,
it still works to lead people to know there is a supreme being that is superior
to them. Unfortunately, because the SD is corrupt, it can also lead people to
skewed acts, like idol worship. The SD helps to lead people to acknowledge an
existence of God but it also condemns them because it does not take them to a
full knowledge of God, but rather to idolatry. In order to appease their
consciences to worship a supreme being, people will create idols to worship and
religions to follow. Calvin
noted that our SD was corrupt and thus misguided. Consequently, the individual
would fall into idolatry and worship creation rather than the Creator.
Due to this, Calvin concluded that idolatry actually proves the SD exists.
Calvin also believed that the SD was also proved in Atheists.
Wayne Grudem explains the latter by drawing his answer from Romans 1. Grudem
says that Paul taught that Gentile unbelievers recognized God’s existence
through nature, yet they did not honour Him as God. Thus,
people are able to deny their inner sense of God and His existence.
So, although people many deny or suppress the SD, it is still engraved in their
hearts. At the same time, because the SD is corrupt and leads people to idol
worship, it also condemns them. However, the SD is not completely hopeless and
unnecessary. Like Calvin, his successor, Theodore Beza never declares that
natural revelation is a route to true knowledge of God because special
revelation is needed. “So,
while it is possible to have a true natural theology, special revelation builds
on natural revelation. That which is dimly sensed in nature is more clearly
seen in supernatural grace.”
Now, before providing more information on special revelation, we will now turn
to Karl Barth’s objections to natural revelation. In turn, this paper will
counter Barth’s arguments by expanding special revelation.
Karl
Barth on Natural Revelation
A
very well known opponent to natural revelation is Karl Barth. Barth did not
deny the existence of natural revelation, but his objection was that it gave
too much autonomy to the sinner to come to know God. How could God allow the
sinner to seek him and come to know of His existence if the very problem that
made humans a sinner was their autonomy? This seems to be the problem in
Barth’s mind. Thomas Torrance, who was Barth’s interpreter and translator,
explained that the main aspect that Barth considers invalid in natural theology
is “its independent character”, which
meant there could be no self-disclosure of the Triune God in nature. Barth
did not believe that humans can come to the knowledge of God with mere natural
revelation because humans are too corrupt to come to the revelation of the
Gospel on their own. Only God is able to reveal a saving truth; humans cannot
achieve or understand it by themselves and without God or His grace. Allister
McGrath describes Barth’s objections to natural revelation as an “anxiety”
which fears that natural revelation gives too much autonomy and control to the
individual to know God.
In addition, other sources have commented how Barth believed that grace would
be absent if an individual could truly come to know anything about God from
nature. This “anxiety” is what made Barth disagree with natural revelation.
The
interesting fact about all of this is that Barth was actually in somewhat of an
agreement with Calvin and company! To explain this agreement, we need to
remember that Calvin and company actually did not believe that natural
revelation could actually bring someone to a full knowledge of God. They
believed that God bears witness to Himself through His immense and complex
creation. However, His witness in creation is insufficient to bring someone to
the truth because special revelation is needed. Calvin
and Barth agreed that only with special revelation can one come to a full
knowledge of God. Barth agrees with the Church Fathers: “we cannot know God
except through God”.
However, the division came when Barth stated that revelation of God’s existence cannot
come through nature, but only
through God’s revelation. Once again, what Barth does not appreciate about
natural revelation is that humanity seems to be in somewhat of a control of
understanding God. However,
Calvin and company were not saying that God could be known fully through
nature; for this reason they affirmed that special revelation was needed.
Barth’s
agreement with Calvin and company of how a full knowledge of God can only be
known through special revelation still did not bring them together on this
point. Barth rejected all natural theology because he believed that the only revelation of God comes from the
Word through the Holy Spirit.
Calvin
and company were not claiming that the way of the Pelagian’s; that natural
revelation offers a way of salvation to sinful humans. Now,
just as Calvin’s position was not based on heresy (Pelagianism), neither was
Barth’s position. Thomas Torrance made it clear that Barth’s objection to
natural revelation did not have Deism as its basis. Barth did not believe that
God was removed from His creation, but he did believe that God did not reveal
himself through it.
Rather, Barth’s “anxiety” of natural revelation came from his belief that that
God’s grace was not as present as human autonomy was.
To
be fair, it would be important to acknowledge the environmental background in
which Barth’s objections were formed. Horton
explains:
As Protestant
liberalism increasingly assimilated revelation to the imminent development of
human potential for morality and progress, the door opened for placing a
natural theology alongside God’s revelation in Christ. In the aftermath of the
First World War, the German Christian movement argued that God had spoken most
fully to our highest spiritual aspirations in Christ and to our highest
cultural aspirations in German culture- specifically, in the fuhrer. It was
against this backdrop that Karl Barth lodged his protest-his famous nein!- against natural theology.
Unfortunately,
some Christians had placed natural revelation with Christ’s revelation in that
time. Christianity began believing in their own abilities because they felt
that they had been given the ability to reach their highest potential through
revelation. This belief took some Christians to very destructive actions played
out in the First World War. It appears that Barth wanted to bring Christianity
back to truth by exposing the depravity of human nature. Thus, Barth’s
objections to natural revelation become obvious as he was trying to state that
humanity was not as moral as they thought they could be; for we are still
corrupt. Because we are corrupt, Barth believed that humans were unable to desire
to seek God and furthermore, they could not come to a knowledge of God through
nature. Human depravity did not allow such revelation. Barth’s reasoning in the
midst of his environment makes sense.
Even though Barth’s objections are
understandable, it does not make them right. Calvin and company were not
declaring that humans are able to come to know God fully. Rather, we are powerless
to come to know God by ourselves. In a way, this puts humanity in an awkaward
position: we cannot be ignorant that God exists because he has provided the SD,
yet we cannot come to know Him by our own revelation- we need Him.
It was during the backdrop of war that
Christians depended so much on themselves that Barth made his objections of
natural revelation well known. Barth wrote his objections to oppose Emile
Brunner, who actually was on Calvin’s side when it came to natural revelation.
Brunner’s arguments only strengthen natural revelation’s position because they
declare that it did not believe humanity could come to a knowledge of God
through the SD-
but just an acknowledgement of God’s existence. In his debate against Barth,
Brunner stated that natural theology does not give us the full truth “because
sin has perverted human reason”.
Brunner also explained that part of natural revelation’s belief was that God
gave humans reasoning. This reason is only enough to convict human conscience
to recognize God’s existence and treat people well. However, human reason is
not enough to understand redemption.
Brunner says: “General revelation displays God’s power, wisdom, righteousness,
goodness, and justice as well as human responsibility, “but there it stops: it
has no saving power”. Despite
Brunner’s reasoning, Barth continued to disagree.
A
Personal Response to Barth’s Objections
Barth
was a solid theologian; however, I feel that Barth did not understand what
Calvin and company were trying to communicate about the knowledge of God’s
existence which can come through nature. I do not wish to be disrespectful or
jump to conclusions by stating that Barth did not understand the concept of
natural revelation, but it is clear that Barth felt that God’s grace was not
present in the SD theory because it gave humans too much autonomy to come to a
knowledge of God. Yet, God’s grace and goodness does seem to be present in natural revelation. God was not
obligated to give humans a God-shaped void in their heart that would draw one
to believe in His existence. Yet, in His goodness, he provides that for
humanity so that they will search him. Acts
17: 27 says: “God did this so
that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he
is not far from any one of us”. Part of God’s goodness and grace is that he
provides things in order for humanity to seek Him, reach Him and find Him by
His grace. Horton says: “No one finds God, but God finds us”;
I fully agree with this statement. The things that God uses to bring
individuals to Him do not imply that He or His grace is uninvolved. Yet Barth
seemed to believe that natural theology implied that humanity could get to know
God without the grace of God. Barth said that humanity is an enemy to grace,
therefore it was impossible to come to a knowledge of God through nature.
For this reason, I feel that Barth did not understand what Calvin was trying to
say about natural revelation; because Barth believed that grace was uninvolved
in natural revelation. Once again, I do not mean to be disrespectful by stating
that Barth did not understand Calvin’s defence of natural revelation. It seems
to me that grace is so obvious in natural revelation. I must then agree to
disagree with Barth in this matter. To conclude my personal response, I would
like to agree with Calvin: God leads us by giving us a sense of divinity, but
it only takes us so far. We need the scriptures to reveal who God is.
Beyond merely understanding what the Scriptures say about God, we need the Holy
Spirit to penetrate our hearts with the word and also seal our hearts. On
this note, the next section on special revelation will commence. The following
section will also be used to counter Barth’s objections to natural revelation.
Special
Revelation
Natural
revelation can only bring one to an awareness of God’s existence. Helm states
that a good-functioning SD should bring one to believe there is a Creator and we
are His creation. However, after the Fall, no SD would be considered to be
functioning as it should because it is corrupt. Therefore, the SD only brings
one to attempt to appease their conscience and compel them to worship a deity
by leading them to idolatry. Due to our depravity, all natural theology is a
form of idolatry. According to Romans 1:18, human depravity causes a
suppression of the truth; Therefore, humans do not need a deeper revelation
found in nature, but a different revelation;
the Gospel.
Therefore, natural revelation is not sufficient for the knowledge of faith; special
revelation is needed. Horton says: “Both for our finitude and for our
sinfulness, our reconciliation with God requires revelation in the form of
divine initiative and condescension”.
Natural revelation demonstrates God as Creator, Lawgiver
and Judge, but not as Saviour.
God is the only one who can enable humans to believe in Him. It
is only through God drawing one through His Holy Spirit’s that one can come to
understand their need of Jesus Christ. This truth can only come from the Words
of God Himself. Grudem explains:
Therefore, we need Scripture to
interpret natural revelation rightly. Hundreds of false religions in the world
are evidence of the way sinful people, without guidance from Scripture, will
always misunderstand and distort the revelation about God found in nature. But
the Bible alone tells us how to
understand the testimony about God from nature. Therefore, we depend on
God’s active communication to us in Scripture for our true knowledge of God.
Even though God reveals His existence through nature, human interpretation of
God’s identity will be distorted because we are depraved. Therefore, the truth
is needed which can only come from the Bible. Nature is not able to tell us
that we are depraved and that we need God. Nor is natural revelation able to
communicate the Gospel of Christ. Only special revelation is able to reveal the
full truth.
For
this reason, Calvin and company believed that special revelation was like an
extension of natural revelation. Calvin
explained that Natural revelation is a priori
knowledge and special revelation is a posteriori
knowledge. In other words, natural revelation is primary in that it is
knowledge built on experience, and special revelation is secondary because it
is built on facts (the Gospel). Calvin believed that both revelations
reinforced each other.
Both revelations recognize God as the one revealing Himself. Barth believed
that natural revelation communicated that the individual would have been in
control of coming to a knowledge of God, but this is not what Calvin is saying.
Research
on this topic shows that following a discussion on natural revelation, special
revelation is always present because knowledge of God cannot be obtained
without it. J. I. Packer states that salvation cannot occur without special
revelation. General revelation is not able to communicate the redemptive works
of God throughout history; but this is only known through the Scriptures. This
fact affirms that Calvin and company did not take away God’s sovereignty,
involvement or grace from humans coming to know Him. God is always involved;
whether through natural or special revelation.
Application
of Natural Revelation in the Believer
I
understand that this section was probably unnecessary for this paper. However,
I chose to write about the application of natural revelation in the believer
because I believe there is a benefit of it to the Christian. Allow me to
explain.
“It
is wrong to treat natural theology and revealed theology as being opposed to
each other, provided that nature is
construed in a trinitatiran manner as the creation of the self-revealing God”. Natural
and special revelation reinforce one another as the last section explained. Of
course, the two revelations can only reinforce each other in a person if he/she
becomes a believer. Therefore, this quote indicates when one knows God, he/she
sees nature as creation and God as its Creator.
There
have been Christians throughout history that have demonstrated with their
devotional reflections that they are lead to know God more through nature. According
to Psalm 19, nature proclaims the glory of God. In addition, the psalmist
invites us to discover the glory of God and His character, beyond his saving
actions to Israel.
“None of this [creation] includes any narrations of God’s saving purposes to
fallen creatures, but it does testify to God’s attributes expressed in his
creative work and moral claim in creation in the original covenant.”
Unlike the Psalmist, Aquinas did not emphasize the beauty of creation, he
believed that the character of God’s own beauty, goodness and truth were seen
in His creation.
C.S.Lewis was another believer who was able to benefit from God revealing
Himself through the beauty of His creation. Lewis believed that the beauty of
creation reflected the beauty of God. Like
Lewis, “Augustine of Hippo argued that there was a natural progression from an
admiration of the beautiful things of the world to the worship of the one who
had created these things, and whose beauty was reflected in them”.
Not
only did Augustine feel lead to worship God due to His beautiful creation, but
he was also lead to delve deeper in understanding God. Augustine explained the Trinity with the
analogy of love and knowledge. Augustine believed there to be traces of the
Trinity in nature and that as the peak of creation, humans should seek those
traces.
This is one of the ways that natural theology is a benefit to the Christian.
Since the Christian has the knowledge of who the Creator is, they are then able
to appreciate creation more and discover parts of God’s character through it.
The believer benefits more from
natural revelation and natural theology because they have special revelation.
Because the believer knows the object of the revelation, namely Christ, they
are lead to worship God and understand Him more.
Conclusion
Calvin
and company held that God has engraved a sense of deity in human beings which
gives them an awareness of His existence. However, the SD is corrupt and thus
leads humanity to worship creation rather than the Creator. Thus, special
revelation is needed. Barth did not believe in the SD because he did not
believe people could come to a knowledge of God by themselves because they are
depraved. Thus, he only believed that a knowledge of God could only be obtained
through special revelation. Calvin and company agreed that people could only
come to a full knowledge of God through special revelation. However, unlike
Barth, they believed that God was
involved in natural revelation; for He is the one who implanted the SD. Calvin
and company also believed that special revelation was built on natural
revelation whereas Barth would not have believed that. Lastly, I provided an
application for believers by giving an example of how a few Christians
throughout history were able to benefit from natural revelation; because they
know the Creator of nature, they are lead to worship Him and understand Him
deeper.
Bibliography
Adams, Edward. "Calvin’s View of Natural Knowledge of
God." International Journal of Systematic
Theology 3, no. 3 (November 2001): 280-92.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae: A Concise Translation. Westminster, MD:
Christian Classics, 1989.
Birch, L C. Nature and God. London: SCM Press LTD, 1965.
Bouillard, Henri. The Knowledge of God. London: Burns & Oates Limited, 1969
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Campbell, Douglas A. "Natural Theology in Paul? Reading
Romans 1.19–20." International Journal of Systematic
Theology 1, no. 3 (November 1999): 231-52.
Evans, C S. Natural Signs and Knowledge of God. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to
Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994.
Helm, Paul. "John Calvin, the Sensus Divinitatis, and
the Noetic eEffects of Sin." International
Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (1998): 87-107.
Helm, Paul. The Divine Revelation: The Basic Issues. London: Marshal, Morgan
& Scott, 1982.
Horton, Michael. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology
for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2011.
Koons, Jeremy R. "Platinga on Properly Basic Belief in
God: Lessons from the Epistemology of
Perception." The Philosophical Quarterly 61, no. 245 (October 2011): 839-50.
McGrath, Allister E. A Scientific Theology: Nature. Volume
1. Scotland.
T&T Clark Ltd., 2001.
McGrath, Allister E. The Christian Theology Reader. Oxford. Blackwell
Publishers Ltd., 1995.
Van Der Kooi, Cornelius. As in a Mirror: John Calvin and
Karl Barth on Knowing God : a Diptych. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV,
2005.
Walker, James B. God Revealed in the Process of Creation and
by the Manifestation of the Lord Jesus.
3rd ed. London:
James Nisbet and Co., 1856.
Webster, John. Karl Barth. 2nd ed. London: Continuum, 2004.
.jpg)
