This piece continues our treatment of the Confession’s statement on Scripture by looking again at the necessity of Scripture. The necessity of Scripture affirms that finite man has always needed a word revelation from God and that God’s speech now comes to us in the form of Holy Scripture, a necessary rule of faith and practice. In a later piece, we will address the various manners in which God revealed himself to man in verbal form but this article contrasts God’s word revelation with general revelation.
The confession reads:
“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation.” Rom 1:19-21; 2:14-15; Psa 19:1-3
The Confession addresses the modes, purpose, and limits of general revelation. In doing so, it neither pits the revelation of God in nature against God’s revelation in Scripture nor does it affirm that one form of revelation is more objective than another. The Confession acknowledges that the revelation of God in nature and in Scripture finds its origin in God who freely and objectively reveals himself in two supernatural ways: general and special revelation.
The Confession acknowledges three modes of general revelation: the light of nature, creation, and providence. The light of nature is the self-evident knowledge of God’s existence and man’s responsibility to the Creator. Man knows these truths by innate knowledge, which Wilhelmus á Brakel describes as, “The innate ability to acknowledge God, that is, to perceive that God exists, is Creator and Ruler over all things, and is Lord over each person, such that each man is obligated to live according to His will and that whoever fails to do this must expect the just manifestation of His wrath notwithstanding that all this is impressed upon the conscience of every man,” (Christian’s Reasonable Service, I.6). Innate knowledge of God is akin to the knowledge of sight. The words in front of you right now evidence themselves to your sight regardless of your reflection or rational deduction such that you have a self-evident awareness of these words. Image bearers possess innate knowledge of God through general revelation in the same way that all men with sight perceive the sun’s light upon opening their eyes.
Innate knowledge is different from but complemented by acquired knowledge, which John Owen defines as “reason in its exercise,” (IV.84). God objectively reveals himself to our reason in its exercise, according to Owen, “by proposing such things unto its consideration as from whence it may and cannot but conclude in an assent unto the truth of what God intends to reveal unto us in that way,” (IV.84). Owen ties acquired knowledge of God, or reason in its exercise, with the other two modes of general revelation, creation and providence.
Bavinck helpfully describes the difference between the innate and acquired knowledge, saying, “The difference is not that innate knowledge of God has its source in humans while acquired knowledge of God arises from the world. Even the moral proof is the product of the moral consciousness inherent in humans. In both cases it is the same complete revelation of God that introduces the knowledge of God into our consciousness. But in the case of the innate knowledge of God, that revelation acts upon the human consciousness, creation impressions and intuitions. In the case of the acquired knowledge of God, human beings reflect upon that revelation of God,” (Reformed Dogmatics, II.74). Man innately knows that there is a God and acquires, by reason, the knowledge that he is accountable to the Maker of heaven and earth. By way of example, when you saw the chair you are now sitting in to read this article, the chair’s appearance was self-evident to you. However, you also reasoned or made a judgment that the chair would hold you for the duration of your reading. The former represents innate knowledge and the latter acquired knowledge. God clearly and objectively reveals himself to both.
The purpose of God’s general revelation is to manifest his goodness, wisdom, and power, those perfections attributed to the divine nature that subsists in three persons. By innate and acquired reason, man knows that God is, even though fallen man suppresses that knowledge. However, man neither innately possesses nor could he ever acquire the doctrine of the Trinity merely from general revelation due to the doctrine of divine simplicity, as Scott Swain articulates, “Because of divine simplicity, the external works of the triune God are not parceled out among the persons, with each person perhaps doing his share to contribute to a larger whole. The external works of the triune God are indivisible,” (Swain, The Trinity: An Introduction, 59).
In a similar manner, the colors of a painting are self-evident to those with eyes and the beauty of the portrait available to the exercise of reason, but the relations of the painter are absent in his work. One can easily discern that the painting was caused, is ordered, possesses beauty, and reflects goodness, but the painting cannot tell you whether it's artist is married or has a son. Inseparable operations demand that the work of creation is the work of all three persons and simplicity precludes the image bearer from being able to know this truth apart from a word revelation.
This leads us to the limits of general revelation. The Confession asserts that general revelation is not sufficient to provide the necessary knowledge that leads to salvation; rather, it provides man with the knowledge that leaves him without an excuse. Here, the soteriological implications are felt. Man cannot merit salvation before God by his deeds and can only be saved by faith in the promises of God revealed in his word, now found in Holy Scripture. As one condemned and corrupt in Adam, mankind is not only inescapably guilty and under God’s wrath but wholly unable to properly respond to God’s general revelation. But even if he could respond, John Gill argues, “The light of nature leaves men entirely without the knowledge of the way of salvation by the Son of God,” (Body of Divinity, 25). The message that must be received by faith only comes through special revelation.
General revelation is God’s free and objective revelation to man via the light of nature in man and the works of creation and providence. It finds its origin in God, and man knows it by innate and acquired knowledge. It differs from special revelation in its breadth since it is a revelation to all men whereas special revelation only comes to some. The content of general revelation differs from special revelation in specificity. Through general revelation, man knows the nature of God and that he is accountable as a creature, whereas, through special revelation, man knows the persons of God and the will of God for salvation as expressed in covenants. Both are supernatural, free, gracious, and accommodated revelations that enable us to know the One for whom we were made.