click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Is Natural Revelation Also God’s Word?
by C Michael PattonSeptember 7th, 2008
2 Comments
Is natural revelation God’s word? Or does Scripture only qualify for such a title? In other words, when nature speaks clearly about something can we say that this represents the voice of God to the same degree as Scripture?
Natural revelation is God’s communication through creation. It is seen in the vast expanse of the universe and in the minute details of the human cell. It is found in the very consciousness of humanity and in our capacity for rational and analytic thought. Nature tells us much about the attributes and character of God. While, without the Scriptures we would lack an understanding of God’s ultimate plan of redemption and Christian living, we would still have quite a bit of theological understanding.
Paul tells the Romans:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1: 18-20)
Notice a few things:
1. “Revealed from heaven . . . being understood through what has been made.” This is what can be know about God without the Scriptures. It is God’s revelation through creation.
2. Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. This tells us that natural revelation is evident to all. This is sometimes referred to as “general revelation” because it has a general audience that is not limited to a particular people, nation, or time.
3. God has shown it to them. This tells us it is from God. God is the author of this revelation.
4. Invisible attributes . . . eternal power and divine nature. This lets us know that we can understand many of the characteristics of God through natural revelation. His “eternal power” (aidios autou dunamis) has to do with not only ultimate power and ability, but the necessity of its eternality. His divine nature (theiotes) speaks of his divinity, or the nature that divinity necessary must encompass, including attributes and characteristics.
5. They have been clearly seen. The word for “clearly” (kathoratai) is in the present indicative telling us that this is an ongoing occurrence. The word carries the idea of inward perception coming from our reasoning, not simply seeing with the eye. BADG suggests this translation:”God’s invisible attributes are perceived with the eye of reason in the things that have been made.” In other words, natural revelation is evidently evident!
6. They are without excuse. This is very important to understand. The word here for “without excuse” (anapologetous) has a judicial feel to it. Josephus uses the word in the sense of being “without a defense.” Dio Chrysostom uses this to describe Alexander’s aid to Homer saying that he will not let Homer go “undefended.” This verse is telling us that these characteristics of God are so clear that people are left without a defense of any sort for unbelief.
About natural revelation’s voice, the Psalmist writes:
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their measuring line goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)
In other words, both these passages teach that we are held accountable for hearing through creation the authoritative voice of God. So much so that we will be without excuse if we ignore what it has to say.
Now, we are evangelicals and biblicists, so we have to make Scripture more authoritative than creation, right? But the problem is How can God’s word (Scripture) be more authoritative than God’s word (creation)? If they are both God’s word speaking with His voice, then they both have the same authority, right?
Some may say, “Yes, but what about Sola Scriptura?” Don’t we believe that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible norm in matters of faith and practice? But this assumes that we have interpreted the Scripture correctly, which is, many times, a rather large assumption. However, creation is the same isn’t it? If we interpret its voice correctly, doesn’t it carry the same authority? This is the key question that I think we need to wrestle with.
Here are some implications:
The acknowledgment of the validity of Natural theology. Natural theology (the theology derived from natural revelation) becomes a primary source of study in which Christians need to engage more often. While natural theology is not emphasized in many of the more fundementalistic Protestant circles, this has not always been the case. Great philosophers and theologians of the past have seen the importance letting God’s voice come through creation. Aristotle’s “Unmoved Mover,” Justin Martyrs “God of the Philosophers,” Anselm’s “Necessary Being,” Aquinas’ “Five Proofs,” and John Calvin’s “sensus divinitatis“Â all evidence an understanding of the authority of creation’s voice. We need acknowledge and engage in the study of God’s voice through creation with more confidence.
Issues of faith and science become less dichotomized. Once we recognize that science is simply the interpretation of God’s “book of nature,” it will no longer be seen as a threat. The scientist can give valuable information to the theologian in the same way the exegete does. Seeming conflict will no longer present the dilemma of having to choose which source is more authoritative, but which source speaks to the issue more clearly. Rhetoric between the ones who study human origins from God’s word in Scripture and those who study God’s word in creation will tamed. Both sides will see that we are ultimately on the same team, even if we may sometimes interpret each source of God’s voice differently.
Current issues about the nature of God will be put into perspective. Open theists who claim that the Bible never speaks about certain attributes of God held to by traditional theists such as asiety, immutability, and necessary eternality can recognize that even if Scripture did not speak of such things (which I do not concede), nature does have an authoritative voice to contribute. This means that philosophy and science do matter. This means that the old adage “If it is not in the Bible, I don’t believe it” is not only irresponsible, but unbiblical! If nature says that God must be an Unmoved Mover, the Necessary Being, the Uncaused Cause, or the creator of time, then we must incorporate this into our theology, even if the Bible did not speak on it.
What I am not saying (just so I don’t have to deal with misconceptions)
- I am not saying that natural revelation is sufficient for salvation. I don’t believe it is. Natural revelation does not present the Gospel.
- I am not saying that Scripture is not as important as we once thought. Without the Scriptures we would not know about God’s plan of redemption. As well, Scripture speaks much more clearly in most areas of faith and practice. Its interpretation is not as difficult and, because of this, its message is more exhaustive and louder.
- I am not saying that Sola Scritura is not correct. Sola Scriptura has to do with special revelation, God’s mediating voice through human agencies, not natural revelation. Otherwise, what do we do with Romans 1 and Psalm 19? How would we say that God’s word is more authoritative than God’s word? Scripture is the final and only infallible authority in the sense that no human institution or authority can rise to its level.
In the end, I propose that natural revelation is just as much God’s word as Scripture (AHhhh!). Both have to be interpreted and both speak to different areas. Most importantly, both are authoritative and should be taken seriously. We will be without excuse if we close our ears to the voice of either.
Similar Posts:
- Is Natural Revelation Also God’s Word?
- What is God (2) – Why I Look to Philosophy and Say You Should Too
- Why I Believe the Canon of Scripture is Theoretically Open . . . And Am Fine With It!
- God’s Hiddenness
- What Sola Scriptura Does NOT Mean
Loading ...
2 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
” I would suggest you read the link from CMP I linked earlier which suggest that the Bible indicates Special Revelation and General Revelation are on much more equal terms then you suggest and that when we understand something with a degree of certainty from General Revelation this should affect our tradition and theology.
If you have some disagreement with CMP’s exegesis of the relevant scripture then let me know where you disagree and we can further this discussion.”
Nothing in Romans 1 would actually be accepted by science, so is this really relevant at all? Show me one science textbook that says any of these things that Paul says are clearly seen, are in fact such.
We’ve just been told by Greg that Matthew’s method of interpretation is really very bad. Why should we then trust Paul’s interpretation of General revelation? Or are you and Greg not on the same page?
Why would Romans 1 be something to quote in favour of interpretations from General revelation to override special revelation, since everything that Romans 1 says is in scripture, not only in Romans 1, but all over the place?
Don’t all exegetes acknowledge that this is Paul’s excursion into commenting on those people who haven’t received the word of God, NOT those who have? Paul’s conclusion about the general revelation is the lack of excuse for those ignorant about things that are known in the scriptures. I can’t see the slightest warrant for you to use this passage to argue for what you want to do.
As I said before, there is a major problem in your hope to integrate evolution into special revelation which is that you have no guidance on how to do so. Even if its true, you have no way to know how to meld the two, other than talk vaguely of metaphors and so forth.
Like or Dislike:
0
Again, I don’t believe that Greg (on the thread “John MacArthur on the ‘Lie of Evolution’” http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/10/john-macarthur-on-the-lie-of-evolution/) said that Matthew’s interpretation of scripture was bad, only that it was different from ours.
Anyway, on natural revelation and interpretation of scripture:
We have only our natural faculties with which to interpret scripture, and we learn how to read and communicate by using our natural faculties and by observing and interacting with nature (unless, perhaps, we are prophets). I’m not discounting any “sensus divinatus” as A. Plantinga calls it, but just pointing out that our primary means of communicating and learning to communicate is entirely natural.
Consequently, when trying to understand the meaning of something that someone else has communicated (e.g., the writer(s) of Genesis), one uses one’s God given natural faculties (including reasoning) to gain as much knowledge about the communication as possible. This includes awareness of unspoken or unwritten assumptions that are part of the shared communication event. When we are separated from the writer by culture and distance, we have to explicitly learn much more about their cultural and communicative assumptions than we do if we are talking to our childhood friends (i.e., people raised in the same cultural milieu as us). It is wrong to import our own assumptions into the text in order to derive the meaning of the text that was intended by the writer(s).
In respect of scripture, the “Wesleyan quadrilateral” (a term coined in the 1960s to describe what Wesley did) has been a very helpful approach. Wesley’s quadrilateral is composed of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, with primacy given to Scripture.
Theistic evolutionists, for example, give far too much weight to “reason” in relation to the other components, and so are willing to re-interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in ways that other Christians find inconsistent with tradition and Scripture.
regards,
#John
More Comments: