Critically assess how well this statement represents Calvin's position on general revelation, evaluate his position as you understand it. Then briefly discuss how Calvin's views relate to your own approach to apologetics in a world of many religions.

FOR

COURSE: BACHELOR OF THEOLOGY

SUBJECT NO: M211.23

SUBJECT NAME: THEOLOGY FRAMEWORK D

LENGTH: ca 2750 WORDS

WORD LIMIT: 2500 WORDS

DUE DATE: 13-APR-2000.

 Abstract

This essay examines the question of general revelation: is it sufficient to leave humanity without excuse, and is it sufficient for salvation? It is demonstrated that Calvin answered ‘yes’ to the former, and ‘no’ to the latter, the accident of the fall having blinded human ability to perceive the clear revelation given by God in nature and human consciousness.

Calvin’s position is assessed both in its faithfulness to the biblical evidence, and against the backdrop of alternative proposals held by various sections of the church. Rejected are both the liberal idea that salvation is available to all outside special revelation, and the neo-orthodox reaction that general revelation gives no knowledge of God.

Calvin’s position is questioned in two areas, however, the first being his reasoning that general revelation was sufficient pre-fall. The second is his ruling out of any possibility of salvation outside of gospel proclamation, which is modified to allow for God, in his sovereignty, to work in extra-ordinary cases without seeing fit to let us (or even the apostle Paul) know.

Finally, the implications of this for apologetics in today’s pluralist society are examined, arguing that it is imperative for Christians to use the general revelation as a touchstone in dialogue with people of other faiths, whilst holding firm to the conviction that only the special revelation of Jesus Christ will bring them salvation.

One sentence can never adequately represent a position on such a complex topic as general revelation, any such attempt being doomed to the verdict 'incomplete'. However, a systematic review of Calvin's theology of revelation undertaken below will demonstrate that this is indeed an accurate summary of the outcome of Calvin's position, whilst ignoring the underling rationale so important to dialogue on this topic. The discussion which follows, comparing this with alternative positions and the biblical evidence, will show that despite some questions remaining over his reasoning, the end result of Calvin's position is the most biblical. Finally, an examination of the implications of Calvin's views for apologetics in today's pluralist society will argue that it is imperative for Christians to use the general revelation as a touchstone in dialogue with people of other faiths, whilst holding firm to the conviction that only the special revelation of Jesus Christ will bring them salvation.

Calvin's theology of general revelation begins with the assertion that humanity cannot know God 'except insofar as he accommodates himself to our…understanding’ due to our limitations both essential (being finite creatures) and accidental (the results of sin). God has graciously descended to bridge this gap, the general revelation accommodating our essential limitations and the special revelation accommodating the accidental. We cannot know God in his essence, but only by the effects of his power.

Calvin asserts a twofold knowledge of God (duplex cognitio Domini), in which we are to know God as both creator/sustainer and, since the fall, redeemer. The knowledge of God as creator is imparted by both general and special revelation; the knowledge of God as redeemer only by the latter. The general revelation of God as creator is itself imparted in two ways, internally as a result of our creation in the imago Dei and externally through nature. The internal witness is a combination of our conscience and sensus divinitatis, evidenced by the universality of religion, a servile fear of 'god', and a troubled conscience.

Calvin's conclusion from this is that we are indeed left without excuse: 'God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead'; 'We cannot plead ignorance, without being at the same time convicted by our own consciences'.

Rendering us inexcusable, however, is only an accidental function of general revelation. 'But this accidental function of the revelation in creation is in fact, under the conditions of sin, its actual function. It no longer achieves its original purpose, but it operates only to involve "the whole human race in the same condemnation".' According to Calvin, although the revelation itself is adequate, sin has blinded us, making us unable to fully comprehend general revelation. 'The manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not found to be sufficient.' This blindness, however, cannot be cited as an excuse, as it arises from our own fault. Just as the Old Testament law of the special revelation gave the theoretical possibility of salvation but in practice could not be fulfilled because of sin, so the moral law of the general revelation allows the possibility of salvation which is denied in practice by sin. Further, our sin has given rise to the need to know God as redeemer, as well as creator, knowledge that can only be imparted by special revelation: there is no faith without knowledge, nor without understanding the powers and offices of Christ.

Thus the above statement in question can be seen to accurately represent the practical outcome of Calvin's theology of general revelation: firstly that it results in the verdict 'inexcusable', and secondly that it is not sufficient in itself for salvation. What it doesn't deal with is the reasoning behind this – how are we without excuse, and why isn't the general revelation sufficient for salvation? Included in any representation of Calvin’s views on the matter should be his belief that general revelation would have been sufficient knowledge for us to glorify him pre-fall, and that it is our own sin which prevents it from being sufficient now. Also crucial is his distinction between knowledge of God as creator and as redeemer, the latter being mediated exclusively through special revelation. Not only does this information show how Calvin arrived at his position, but it also enables dialogue with other views and the biblical data, as will be attempted in the following evaluation of Calvin’s position.

Throughout both testaments the idea that all humanity has been given some knowledge of God is prevalent. Indeed, only by radically different interpretation can one escape the conclusion that general revelation makes available to all humanity the knowledge of God as creator, thus leaving them without excuse.

Regarding the Old Testament, Lewis and Demarest cite the lack of any explanation or proof of God’s existence in the opening chapter of Genesis as showing that ‘the fundamental concept of God was the common property of all people from the very beginning’. In Job, both the speeches of Elihu and God suggest the universal nature of general revelation; for example, ‘All people have looked on it; everyone watches it from far away’ (Job 36:25). Psalm 19 is the most striking of the nature psalms, the heavens ‘telling the glory of God’ (19:1) with the message going out ‘through all the earth’ (19:4). This suggests that general revelation ‘is not something read into nature by those who know God on other grounds; it is already present, by God’s work of creation and continuing providence’.

In the New Testament we see Paul and Barnabas use general revelation as known points of contact with the Gentiles in Lystra: that God is creator of everything and the provider of human needs (Acts 14:15-17). Paul’s address to the Athenians (Acts 17:24-31) also shows that pagans were aware of a number of God’s characteristics from general revelation.

However, the most crucial texts are found in Romans (1:18-20 and 2:12-16). The case against rebellious humanity made implicitly elsewhere in the scriptures is finally made plain by Paul: ‘so they are without excuse’ (1:20). Whilst not having the Jewish Law, Gentiles have a moral law in their hearts, so that when they disobey their own conscience they stand condemned (2:14-15). The result (or, perhaps, purpose) of general revelation is that humanity stands condemned.

Of those traditions which would dispute this point, none has been as influential as the neo-orthodox position of Karl Barth. It is best viewed as a reaction against natural theology which argues that salvation can be attained outside of special revelation, with Barth contending that no knowledge of God is imparted outside of special revelation. This view requires a difficult reading of Romans 1:18-20 based on the context of the preceding three verses, namely that what has been made plain to the Gentiles was done so by apostolic proclamation, thus not referring to the unevangelised. Paul’s assertion that the Gentiles know God refers to a theoretical knowledge ‘on the basis of God’s universal election of humankind in Christ, even though in actual fact the pagan is not conscious of such knowledge’. Barth also re-interprets Psalm 19:3 (‘There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard;’) as an independent and adversative clause, denying the clear statements in the preceding two verses.

In evaluating Barth’s view it must be said that only a prior conviction that general revelation gives no knowledge of God could lead to his interpretation of the above passages. With the hindsight of history the neo-orthodox position is quite clearly an overreaction, perhaps necessary, to the liberal dominance of the time, and can thus almost be rejected on that basis alone. However, apart from its incongruity with a plainer reading of Romans, there is also the issue of justice. In response to Barth we could restate Moody’s famous question thus: what kind of God is he who doesn’t give man enough knowledge to condemn him, but condemns him anyway?

Clark, whilst not denying the existence of a general revelation, claims it is in essence inadequate, but refrains from making any judgement on whether it leaves us without excuse. Contrary to Calvin, ‘It is not because of sin alone that man fails to get God’s message. The truth is that nature has less of a message than some people…think.’ Psalm 19:1 does not, in Clark’s opinion mean ‘that the existence of God can be formally deduced from an empirical examination of the universe.’ He points to the fact that before the fall, Adam still required a special revelation from God to know what he was to do (to multiply, subdue nature, eat fruit from all bar one tree). Gootjes agrees, asserting that ‘in paradise God conversed freely with man’, and goes further, arguing that general revelation in its present form dates from the fall: ‘there was no revelation of God’s wrath before sin.’

The majority of conservative scholars, however, take the biblical evidence at its face value, concurring with Calvin. The revelation of God is still clear enough to be seen and comprehended, but sin has blinded our ability to do so. The actual function, therefore, of general revelation is simply negative: to preserve human responsibility before God ‘because it heightens the conviction of sin and brings to consciousness the state of inexcusability’. This function is threefold, establishing the existence of God, unfolding the character of God, and describing the moral requirements of God, all of which are essential for the individual to recognise their need for the grace offered by special revelation. Diehl argues that this is also required by logic and justice:

This is a persuasive argument, which must mean the rejection of both Barth’s view, and Clark’s position that general revelation is in some way in essence insufficient, in favour of Calvin’s assertion that our own sin is the reason it is ineffectual. However, in formulating a theology of general revelation, Calvin’s position that general revelation was all that was required in paradise (and indeed has not changed in essence since the fall) must be somehow reworked to incorporate the special revelation given to Adam and the lack of revelation of wrath.

The second question to be asked is much thornier, that of salvation by general revelation alone. The vast weight of scriptural evidence disfavours this idea, the particularity of God’s special revelation in Jesus Christ being emphasised (see Matt 11:27, John 14:6 and Acts 4:12). Against Old Testament evidence of salvation of certain individuals through non-standard means (but still, perhaps, by a special revelation) there is the assertion that these ‘many and various ways’ have now been superseded by Christ (Heb 1:1-2). ‘The story of divine revelation is a story of progression up to Christ, but there is no progression beyond him.’

Even those passages in Romans that perhaps hint at the possibility of salvation by general revelation are set in the context of proving that no-one can measure up to God’s requirements, neither the Jew trying to obey the Mosaic Law, or the Gentile trying to obey their own conscience – ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ (Rom 3:23). If the general revelation offers salvation in theory, condemned is the ‘condition of all people outside Christ’ in actuality. Thus the biblical evidence heavily supports Calvin’s view.

The main opponents of the above conclusions are liberal scholars, whose objections must be examined and refuted if Calvin’s position is to be upheld. One representative of this thought is Clark Pinnock, whose theology of general revelation is shaped by his response to Dale Moody’s question ‘what kind of God is he who gives man enough knowledge to damn him but not enough to save him?’ Pinnock’s understanding of God as loving redeemer forces him to the conclusion that every individual must be given the opportunity to accept salvation. He rejects as ‘not very convincing’ the idea that no-one ever responds favourably to general revelation, citing Job, Enoch and Noah.

Open to many different ideas as to how universal opportunity for salvation will be achieved, it appears Pinnock favours salvation either by one’s faith response to the light one has received in this life, or by postmortem encounter in the next (‘God does not cease to be gracious to sinners just because they are no longer living’) hinted at 1 Peter 4:6.

Pinnock’s position, as attractive as it is to the heart, is clearly based on a ‘logic-first, scripture second’ methodology. His reading of Romans 2:15 as ‘the possibility of being accused or excused on the day of judgment’ doesn’t fit the context or the whole counsel of Romans, let alone scripture. His assertion that the majority of people will be saved flies in the face of the fewness doctrine espoused by Jesus, with flimsy defence offered by eschatological passages citing great multitudes but unlike the former category of verses, not in comparison to anything. Finally, adoption of Pinnock’s view would entail rejection of individual election, something the vast weight of biblical evidence does not allow.

Calvin’s view must thus be cautiously upheld, given the failure of any persuasive alternatives. Erickson agrees whilst salvation through general revelation must be at least a theoretical possibility (given Romans 1:20 and Diehl’s argument, above), Romans 3 suggest that in actual fact, no-one will be. Caution must be exercised, however, as indicated by the number of scholars who on the one hand upholding the fact that general revelation of itself does not save, are at pains to point out the possibility that God will act through his Holy Spirit to enable those who have not heard the special revelation of Christ in scripture to be saved – that is, through a kind of personal, special revelation. Demarest believes God’s sovereignty makes it ‘difficult to rule out the possibility that in exceptional circumstances God might choose to reveal Himself in some extraordinary way independently of gospel proclamation’. However, the question must also be asked whether ‘the Holy Spirit ever convicts of sin to bring about authentic repentance without also providentially directing missionaries’?

Thus an ‘open’ Calvinism appears the best approach, acknowledging that the evidence God has chosen to give us points to special revelation of Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit as being the proscribed way of salvation, but allowing the possibility that God will work independently of that. Moreover, he may do that without seeing fit to let us know – as Jesus said to Peter ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ (John 21:22).

Calvin’s views, on the whole upheld above, must have consequences for apologetics in a pluralist society. "Cautious Calvinism" must operate from the assumption that people do not have the opportunity to receive salvation unless they are told (Rom 10:14). This increases the urgency and motivation for gospel proclamation and apologetic interaction ‘for no one is innocent’. A second implication must be that other religions are not many paths to one God, as only Christ through special revelation can save. Risking a charge of arrogance, a conviction of the uniqueness of the Christian message must be maintained in a society whose basic tenets include tolerance and relativism. All other religions neglect grace as the basis of salvation, peddling various forms of works-righteousness which is not acceptable to God.

However, not all is negative. Calvin’s affirmation of general revelation must result in its being used as a point of contact for apologetic interaction. Other religions do not ‘consist only of falsehood and lies’ since through general revelation ‘undisputed truths about God, man and sin lie embedded [in them] to varying degrees’. As cited above, the Acts account of Paul’s preaching to Gentiles shows his strategy of appealing to agreed common ground arising from general revelation. This does not mean that our appeal to knowledge of God from general revelation will always be accepted, just as Paul received a mixed response (Acts 17:32). There is a universal tendency for sinful humans to suppress this knowledge, hence atheism (Rom 1:21); or to distort it, hence pantheism’s worship of created energy rather than the creator (Rom 1:25).

The inherent tension thus described should be viewed as a part of the apologetic task, which should humanly speaking lead to despair – which is overcome only by affirming, with Calvin, that God is actively working to bring his elect to himself by the Holy Spirit, who illuminates revelation, both general and special.