-- B. General and special revelation
of doctrine or life, etc., already appear to be much too narrow in this case. It is God's purpose in His revelation to place man in a religious relationship to Him. Religion, however, embraces mankind with all his faculties and powers. In revelation God approaches man as a whole, to win him completely for His service of love. Revelation cannot aim to place man in a religious relationship with God.
Mankind is one whole. It is the object of God's love. Revelation's ultimate goal, therefore, is to make mankind itself as a single whole into a kingdom, a people of God. Revelation is not an isolated historical fact. It is a system of acts of God, beginning with creation and ending in the new heaven and the new earth. It is instruction, education, guidance, government, renewal, forgiveness, etc., all of these things together. Revelation is everything that God does to recreate mankind in His image and likeness.
B. General and special revelation.
3. Christian theology soon came to make a significant distinction in this revelation. On the one hand, the coherence and harmony of the Christian religion and the Pagan religion, of theology and philosophy, could not be wholly denied; and on the other hand,
Christianity was a separate and distinct religion, differing in every respect from the Pagans. Thus one was led to the distinction between the revelatio (religio, theologia) naturalis and supernaturalis. As a matter of fact, it is already found among the oldest church fathers.
Justinus Martyr speaks of an αν&ρωπειος διδασκαλία, which is obtained by το έμφυτον παντι γενε! άνίλρωπων σπέρμα του λογον and of a γνωσις και ')εωρια, which only through Christ becomes our portion, Apol. II 8, 10, 13. Tertullian has a separate treatise the testimonio animae, and speaks of a knowledge of God from the works of creation, and of another more complete through men filled with God's Spirit, Apolog. II c. 18. Irenaeus speaks moremany times in the same sense, adv. haer. II c. 6, 9, 28. III 25. IV 6. Augustine recognizes a revelation of God in nature, de Gen. ad. litt. 4, 32, de civ.
Dei 8, 11 sq. 19, 1 etc., but puts next to the ratio the auctoritas, the fides, c. Acad. 3,20 the util. cred. 11, which alone leads to the true
knowledge of God, Conf. 5,5, 7,26, de civ. 10,29. By Damascenus, de fide orthod. I. c. 1 sq. this distinction already bears the character of a dogma. The later division of the theologia naturalis into insita and acquisita is also to be found already with the oldest church writers.
Tertullian appeals to the inner witness of the soul and to the contemplation of God's works. Augustine says explicitly that God can be known from the visible, de Gen. ad. litt. 4,32 but points especially to self-awareness and self-knowledge as the way to eternal truth, de vera relig. 72, the mag. 38, the trin. 4,1. Damascenus, de fide orth. I c. 1 and 3, already clearly juxtaposes the innate and the acquired knowledge of God. The boundaries between the two types of revelation were not so readily demarcated. For a long time people still tried to prove the Christian dogmata from nature and reason.
Augustine tried to prove the Trinity, the Trin. lib. 9-15, Anselmus in his Cur deus homo the menschgenesis and satisfaction, Albertus
Magnus, cf. Stöckl, Philos, des M. A. II. 384 f., and Thomas, S. c.
Gent. II. 15 sq. prove the creation aposteriori. Raymund de Sabunde went furthest in this respect, who in his Liber naturae sive creaturarum, later erroneously called Theologia naturalis (ed. by J.
Sighart, Solisbaci, 1852 without the prologue, which was condemned in 1595) attempted to build up the whole of Christian doctrine from the nature of man, without the aid of Scripture and tradition and avoiding the scholastic method. But this rational argumentation was only an aid that came after; the dogmata were fixed apriori on the basis of revelation; adjuvantur in fide invisibilium per ea, quae facta sunt, Lombardus, Sent. I dist. 3, 6. cf. 2, 1. Furthermore, the knowledge that could be obtained from nature was limited to a few articuli mixti, which concentrated on the three concepts of God, virtue and immortality, Thomas, S. c. Gent. Lib. 1-3. The distinction between the theol. naturalis and supernaturalis, however, became more and more rigid in scholasticism and passed into an absolute opposition. By natural revelation some strictly scientific knowledge of God and divine matters could be obtained, Thomas, S. Theol. II 2 qu. 1 art. 5, cf. Bellarminus, Controv. IV p. 277 sq. Thomas is so firmly convinced of this, that he raises the question, whether in that case the acceptance of these truths known from nature does not lose
all its merit. Believing is only meritorious, if it is not knowing but a taking for true on authority, an act of reason ex motu voluntatis motae per gratiam, ib. II 2 qu. 2 art. 9. The answer to that question is, that knowing indeed diminishes the ratio fidei; but still the ratio caritatis always remains in the believer, i. e. the disposition to accept what is known as true also again and again on God's authority, ib. II 2 qu. 2 art. 10; and this disposition, to believe the articuli mixti on authority, remains always necessary because of special circumstances (see later under N° 7). To this knowledge of nature and reason the knowledge of the mysteries has now been added by supernatural revelation, but this rests solely on authority and is and remains from beginning to end a matter of faith. The mysteries of Christianity belong to an order, which is not accidental, because of sin, but which is, of course, supernatural to every man, even to sinless men, and even to the angels, and therefore can never be known except by revelation. This peculiar Roman doctrine will be discussed in more detail in connection with special revelation. But here it should already be noted that knowing and believing, ratio and auctoritas, natural and supernatural revelation, all coexist in a dualistic way with Rome. Thus, on the one hand, Rome recognizes the right of rationalism in the realm of natural revelation and condemns excessive supranaturalism, which even in the articuli mixti considers no knowledge possible except through revelation. On the other hand, it upholds supranaturalism in the field of the mysteries as strictly as possible and condemns all rationalism which, apriori or aposteriori in the dogmata, seeks to escape authority and faith and to turn them into knowledge. It rejects both Tertullian and Origen and condemns both the traditionalism of de Bonald and the rationalism of Hermes (cf. above page 94). The Roman Church confesses, according to the Vaticanum, sess. Ill Const. Dogm. de fide cath. cap. 2, Deum.... natural! humanae rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse, but that it has pleased God, alia, eaque supernaturali via, se ipsum ac aeterna voluntatis decreta humano generi revelare.
4. The Reformation has adopted this distinction of revelatio naturalis and supernaturalis and yet has given it, in principle, an entirely different meaning. The Reformers did accept a revelation of God in nature. But mankind's intellect had been so darkened by sin that he could not rightly know and understand this revelation either. It was therefore necessary that God should include in special revelation those truths which are in themselves discernible from nature; and that man should first be enlightened by God's Spirit in order to perceive God again in nature. In order to understand the general revelation of God in nature, man objectively needed special revelation in Scripture, which Calvin compared to spectacles, and subjectively man needed the eye of faith to see God in the works of His hands. Equally important was the change made by the Reformation in the concept of supernatural revelation. It was not in the first place supernatural for that reason, since it belonged to a different order and was beyond the understanding of sinful man and of angels; but it was supernatural above all because it far exceeded the thoughts and desires of sinful, fallen man, as will be shown later.
With the Reformers, therefore, the theologia naturalis lost its rational independence. It was not treated separately but included in the Christian doctrine, Zwingli, Comm. de vera et falsa relig. Op. ed.
Schuier et Schulthess III 156 sq. Calvin, Inst. I c. 1-5. Polanus, Synt.
Theol. I cap. 10. Martyr, Loci Comm. loc. 2 etc. But several causes were there, which prevented this reformatory principle from its development and full application. There was excessus, overstrain, on the one side. Anabaptism rejected the ordo naturalis entirely and sought in a revolutionary way to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. The Socinians rejected the theologia naturalis entirely, and derived all knowledge of God from revelation, Catech. Racov. qu. 4649. Fock, Der Socin. 307 f. Luther, by his opposition to the scholastic doctrine, naturalia mansisse integra, went so far as to forbid
Aristotle, reason, and philosophy in theologicis all right to speak and to call Vernunft in religious things stock-, starund gar blind,
Köstlin, Luther's Theology II 287 f. Luthardt, Ethik Luthers, 14 f.
Strauss, Glaubenslehre I311f. The strict Lutherans followed the Master; and the Formula Concordiae, though recognizing that
humana ratio seu intellectus naturalis hominis obscuram aliquam notitiae illius scintillulam reliquam habet, quod sit Deus, et particulam aliquam legis tenet, II Pars. Sol. Part. II. de lib. arb., J. T.
Muller, Die symb. Bücher der ev. luth. K. 5th Aufl. 1882 S. 589, nevertheless lays such one-sided emphasis on the darkness and impotence of the natural man in matters of religion, that the coherence and connection of the special with the general revelation is entirely broken; man in rebus spiritualibus et ad conversionem aut regenerationem is nothing more than a lapis, truncus aut limus, ib. with Müller S. 594.
The reaction against this could not fail to be noticed. In Anabaptism and Socinianism excessive supranaturalism turned into rationalism.
Luther was forced to make a sharp distinction between the spiritual and the temporal, the heavenly and the earthly, the eternal and the temporal, Köstlin, Luther's Theol II 244 f., because he could not deny reason all insight and judgment. And following in his footsteps, the Lutheran theologians made a distinction between duo hemisphaeria, quorum unum inferius, alterum superius ; in earthly things reason is still free and capable of much good, here it is to a certain extent independent of faith, Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. 192 f. Even
Calvin, though in a much more favorable condition than Luther with his doctrine of gratia communis, could not always overcome the old dualistic opposition of revelatio naturalis and supernaturalis, Inst. II,
2, 12, 13. It seemed that it did not always have to be led by faith, but that it was free and independent in an area, albeit still so small and undifferentiated. With this right, granted to her or at least not seriously challenged, she has profited; gradually she has extended her power. First in civil affairs, then in science, later in philosophy, and finally also in theology, she elevated herself next to and against faith. Alsted published a Theol. naturalis 1615 separately, and counted as its contents seven dogmata: deus est, super omnia diligendus, honeste vivendum est, quod tibi non vis fieri alten ne feceris, suum cuique tribuendum est, nemo laedendus est, plus est in bono communi positum quam in particulari, cf. Praecognita 1623 p.
37-114. Many Geref. theologians followed this example, especially
when the philosophy of Cartesius gained influence, Doedes, Inl. to the doctrine of God, 2nd ed. 1880 p. 200 f. Through English deism and German rationalism the theologia naturalis or rationalis increased in power and prestige to such an extent, that it rejected the theologia revelata as entirely unnecessary. Herbert of Cherbury 15811648, gave to the religio naturalis five articles as content: esse deum summum, coli debere, virtutem pietatemque esse praecipuas partes cultus divini, dolendum esse ob peccata ab iisque resipiscendum, dari ex bonitate justitiaque divina praemium vel poenam turn in hac vita turn post hanc vitam, Lechler, Gesch. des engl. Deismus 42. But after she had banned the theologia revelata, she in turn was also judged herself. Kant argued in his critique of pure reason that it is limited to sensory phenomena and cannot penetrate either the transcendental or the supernatural. The history of religions showed that no single religion was sufficient to satisfy the revelatio naturalis, that there was no religio naturalis anywhere and that all religions were positive. And the criticism of Scripture undermined the revelatio supernaturalis and erased the boundaries between it and the revelatio naturalis. Thus the conviction became general that, in order to obtain some knowledge of God, one had to take a path other than that of reason and scientific proof, namely, that of faith, of moral experience, or of phantasy. Theologia and religio naturalis, and with them also the revelatio naturalis, lost their value. The proofs of God's existence, the soul, immortality, were given up and banned from dogmatics. Pierson, Eene levens-bouwing 83, even said that education in the theol. naturalis at state colleges was a waste of the nation's money. Nevertheless, in the law on higher education it has been included again under the name of history of the doctrine of God and of philosophy of religion. Prof. Doedes rejected it in his
Encyclopaedia, 190 ff, but actually treated it again in his Introduction to the Doctrine of God, 2nd ed. 1880 and The Doctrine of God 1871. Everything indicates, as will be shown in the locus de
Deo, that the evidence for God's existence is rising in value again.
The good idea, which lies in the old theologia naturalis, is gradually being better recognized.
5. Although Scripture has the concept of a fixed order of nature, it makes no distinction in its revelation between the natural and the supernatural. She uses the same words for both, e.g. גרה, φατεροντ and άποχαλυπτίΐν also for the revelatio naturalis Job 12: 22, 33: 16,
36: 10 ; Rom. 1: 18, 19. Nösgen, Beweis des Glaubens, Nov. 1890 S.
416-417 therefore wrongly objects to giving the revelation of God in nature the name of revelation. Actually, from the point of view of Scripture, all revelation, including that in nature, is supernatural.
The word itself does not imply anything about the way in which something is revealed, but only that something which was hidden is brought to light. In the religious sphere it indicates that God has an independent life, distinct from nature, and that in one way or another He can appear from His hiddenness to reasonable creatures.
Therefore, in a real sense, only those who recognize the supranatural, an ordo supra hanc naturam, can speak of revelation; and everyone who uses the word in this sense is in principle a supranaturalist, even if he only accepts revelation in the natural way. The distinction between revelatio naturalis and supernaturalis does not derive from the action of God which is manifested in one and the other revelation, but from the manner in which that revelation occurs, namely, per or praeter hanc naturam. In origin all revelation is supranatural. God always works John 5: 17. That working of God began outwardly with creation. The creation is the first revelation of God, the beginning and basis of all subsequent revelation. The biblical concept of revelation is rooted in that of creation, Oehler,
Theol. des A. T. 1882 S. 21. Through creation, God first came out before creatures and revealed Himself to creatures. When God creates the world through His Word and makes it alive through His
Spirit, therein already lie the foundations of all subsequent revelations. But the creation is immediately followed by providence.
This too is an omnipotent and omnipresent power and act of God. All that is and is done is a work of God in the true sense, and for the pious a revelation of His virtues and perfections. This is how the Scriptures view nature and history. Creation, maintenance and government are one powerful, ongoing revelation of God. No poetry of nature has surpassed or equalled that of Israel, Pierson, Geestel.
Ancestors I Israel p. 389 f. Everything in nature speaks to the pious of God. The heavens tell of God's glory, the firmament of His hands work. God's voice is on the great waters. That voice breaks the cedars, in the thunder, roars in the stormy wind. The light is his garment, the sky his curtain, the clouds his chariot. His breath creates and renews the earth. He rains and gives sunshine over the righteous and the unrighteous. Praise and glory, rain and drought, fruitful and unfruitful years, and all things are not given to the believer by chance but by God's fatherly hand. The natural and historical view of Scripture is religious and therefore supranatural.
For Scripture even religion and supernatural revelation are closely related. It tells of such revelation not only after, but also before the fall. The relationship between God and man in the status integritatis is described as a personal relationship. God speaks to man Gen. 1:2830, gives him a commandment he could not know by nature Gen.
2:16 and adds as if by his own hand the woman to help him, Gen. 2 vs. 22. Also the foedus operum is not in the sense of a foedus naturae, that it arises naturally from man's natural disposition, but is a fruit of supernatural revelation. And since the foedus operum is nothing but the form of religion in man created in God's image who had not yet attained the highest, it can be said that Scripture cannot conceive of pure religion without revelatio supernaturalis. The supernatural does not conflict with man's nature, nor with the nature of the creatures; it belongs, so to speak, to man's nature. Man is the image of God and related to God, and through religion he stands in direct relation to God. The nature of this relationship implies that God is both objectively and subjectively public to man, created in His image. There is no religion without tradition, dogma, and worship; and these are all interwoven with the concept of revelation. All religions, therefore, are positive and rely not only on natural but always on real or perceived supernatural revelation. And all human beings by nature recognize the supranatural. Naturalism, like atheism, is a philosophical invention, but it has no support in human nature. As long as religion is part of man's nature, man will also be and remain a supranaturalist. Every believer, of whatever
orientation, may be a naturalist with his head, but he is a supranaturalist with his heart. Whoever wants to banish the supranatural from religion, i.e. from prayer, from fellowship with God, kills religion itself. For religion presupposes real kinship and communion with God and is supranaturalist in heart and soul. It is inseparable from the belief that God is supra-natural and that He can do with her as He pleases, that He makes the natural order subservient to the moral order, the riches of the world to the kingdom of heaven, physis to ethos. It has therefore been rightly said that the prayer for a pure heart is as supranaturalistic as that for a healthy body (Pierson). The theist, who wants to be a true theist and yet disputes the supernatural revelation, is by no means finished with this denial. He must either return to deism or pantheism, or he must advance and also accept the possibility of supernatural revelation. There is no religio naturalis. The rationalistic trilogy is untenable. The only true contradiction of the recognition of the supranatural is therefore not rationalistic deism, but naturalism, i.e. the belief that there is no other higher power than that which is present in the present order of nature 'and manifests itself. But then all right to believe in the triumph of the good, in the final triumph of the kingdom of God, in the power of the moral world order, also falls away. For the good, the true, the moral order, the kingdom of God, are things that have no power of their own to be realized. The hope that mankind will bring them into being and succumb to the power of truth is disappointed every day by experience. Only then is their triumph assured, when God is a personal, omnipotent being and can lead all creation, despite all opposition, to His intended goal.
Religion, morality, the recognition of a destiny for humanity and the world, the belief in the triumph of the good, the theistic world view, the belief in a personal God are all inextricably linked to supranaturalism. The idea of God and of religion involves that of revelation. Pierson , God's miracle power and our spiritual life 1867 bl. 10 v. 36 v. James Orr, The Christian view of God and the world,
Edinb. 1893 p. 60 etc. 91 etc. Cf. Rauwenhoff, Wijsbeg. v. godsd. 530 v.
6. Supernatural revelation, however, is not to be identified with immediate revelation. The distinction between indirect and immediate revelation has always been taken in a different sense. In the past every revelation was called direct, which came to the recipient himself without an intermediary; and indirect, which was transmitted to others by angels or men, Witsius, Misc. Sacral. Insofar as revelation came to the prophets and apostles in person, but only came to us through their writings, the former could be contrasted with the latter as revelatio immediata. With the rationalist and modern theologians these terms have often received an entirely different meaning, thereby increasing the confusion in the understanding of revelation, Rothe, zur Dogm. 55 f. 64 f. Nitzsch,
Lehrb. der ev. Dogm. 163 f. In the strict sense there is no immediate revelation, either in nature or in grace. God always makes use of a means, either taken from the creatures or freely chosen, by which He reveals Himself to mankind. By signs and symbols He makes them feel His opposition; by deeds He proclaims His virtues; by speech and language He makes His will and thought known to them. Even when He reveals Himself to the conscious mind through His Spirit, this revelation always takes place organically and therefore through the intermediary way. The distance between Creator and creature is far too great for man to perceive God directly. Finitum non est capax infiniti. Whether there will be a visio Dei per essentiam in the status gloriae, can only be examined later. But in this dispensation all revelation is indirect. As God is and speaks in Himself, He cannot be seen or understood by any creature. Revelation is therefore always an act of grace; in it God descends to His creature, which is made in His image. All revelation is anthropomorphism, a certain incarnation of God. It always takes place in certain forms, in certain modes. In the revelatio naturalis, His divine and eternal thoughts are deposited in the creatures in a creaturely manner, so that they can be understood by the thinking man. And in the revelatio supernaturalis
He binds Himself to space and time, adopts human language and speech, and makes use of creaturely means, Gen. 1:28, 2:16ff, 21ff,
3:8ff. And through these mediums man heard and understood God just as well and just as clearly, as nti the devout hear God's speech
throughout the whole of nhture. As little impossible and deceiving as the revelation of God in nature and history is for the believer, it is also supernatural revelation, in which God makes use of unusual means, but to which He also opens the eyes in a special way. Natural and supernatural revelation go together in the status integritatis according to the teaching of Scripture. They are not opposites but complement each other. They are both indirect and bound up with certain forms and means. They are both based on the idea that God in grace bows down to man and becomes like him. And they both have these modes, that God makes his presence felt, his voice heard and his works seen. From the beginning God revealed Himself to mankind through appearance, word and deed.
It is remarkable that the sin which entered the world through the first man does not change the very fact of revelation. God continues to reveal Himself; He does not withdraw. First of all, throughout
Scripture we are taught a revelatio naturalis. God's revelation began in creation and continues in the maintenance and government of all things. He reveals Himself in the nature surrounding us; in it He displays His eternal power and divinity, and in blessings and judgments proves alternately His goodness and His wrath, Job 36,
37. Ps. 29, 33:5, 65, 67:7, 90, 104, 107, 145, 147. Isa. 59 : 17-19. Mt. 5 :
45. Rom. 1 : 18. Acts 14 : 16. He reveals Himself in the history of nations and persons Deut. 32:8. Ps. 33:10, 67:5, 115:16. Spr. 8:15, 16.
Hd. 17 : 26. Rom. 13 : 1. He also reveals Himself in the heart and conscience of every man Job 32:8, 33:4. Prov 20:27. John 1:3-5, 9,
10. Rom 2:14, 15, 8:16. This revelation of God is general, in itself perceptible and understandable to every human being. Nature and history are the book of God's omnipotence and wisdom, of His goodness and justice. All peoples have recognized this revelation to a certain extent. Even idolatry supposes that God's δνταμις and Σειστής are revealed in the creatures. Many a sage, naturalist and historian has spoken strikingly of this revelation of God, e.g.
Xenophon, Memor. I 4, 5. Cicero, de nat. deor. II 2, de divinat.'II 72.
Zöckler, Gottes Zeugen im Reich der Natur, 2 Th. Gütersloh 1881.' By Christian theology this general revelation has at all times been
unanimously adopted and defended, Iren. adv. haer. II 6. Tertull. de testim. animae, adv. Marc. I 10. August, de civ. Dei 8 : 9 sq. 19:1, de trin. 4 : 20 etc. Joh. Damasc. de fide orthod. I c. 1 and 3. Thomas, S. c. Gent. lib. 1-3. S. Theol. I qu. 2 etc., cf. further H. Denzinger, Vier
Bücher von der relig. Erk. II S. 27-45. Especially by the Geref. theologians this general revelation was maintained and highly esteemed, Calv. Inst. I c. 4 and cf. further Schweizer, Gl. der ev. K. I 241 f. Heppe, Dogm. der ev. ref. K. S. 1 f. Scholten, Leer der Herv.
Kerk I4 304326. Doedes, Introduction to the Doctrine of God 2nd dr. bl. 107-252.
But according to Scripture, this general revelation is not strictly speaking only natural, but also contains supernatural elements. The revelation, which takes place immediately after the fall, has a supranatural character, Genesis 3:8 f., and becomes the property of mankind by tradition. The original knowledge and service of God will remain for a long time in a more or less pure state. Cain is given grace for law; he even becomes the father of a generation that begins culture, Gen. 4. The covenant established with Noah after the flood, and in him with all new mankind, is a covenant of nature and yet no longer natural, but the fruit of unmerited supernatural grace, Gen
8:21, 22, 9:1-17. Scripture often mentions the wonders that God wrought before the eyes of the Gentiles, in Egypt, Canaan, Babylon, etc., and the supernatural revelations that fell upon non-Israelites,
Gen. 20, 30, 40, 41. Richt. 7. Dan. 2:4 etc. An operation of supernatural forces in the pagan world is neither impossible nor even improbable. There may be truth in the appeal to revelations, which is common to all religions. And conversely, not everything that belongs to the area of special grace is supernatural in a strict sense.
There are entire periods in the history of Israel, many days and years in the life of Jesus, and likewise in the life of the apostles, in which no supernatural revelation takes place and yet which form an important part of the historia revelationis. When Jesus preaches the gospel to the poor, this is of no less importance than when He heals the sick and raises the dead. His death, which seems natural, is of no less importance than his supernatural birth. Therefore the