The Voice of the Gospel in Nature and the Organic Unity of God's Revelation

Endemic to the current discussion on 2K theology is the issue of whether special revelation bears equally upon both believer and unbeliever. I have touched upon this in these two brief posts: The Antithesis a New Species Doth Not Make and Bavinck Contra NL2K/R2K

What follows is a masterful exposition of the organic unity of God's revelation as manifested in its two, but perichoretic, forms (natural and special). This should prove helpful in the navigation of a better stream, a Vossian-Van Tillian path, amidst Transformationalist Neo-Calvinism and Radical/Natural Law Two Kingdoms avenues.

[Kerux:NWTS 21/2 (Sep 2006) 13-34]
Natural and Special Revelation: A Reassessment1
William D. Dennison, Ph. D.

Introduction: Raising the Issue

"Then God said, `Let there be light;' and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning the first day" (NKJ Gen. 1:3-5).

As God created the light on the first day of creation, and he separated the light from the darkness, I ask you, should we understand the creation of the light as natural revelation or special revelation? I think we tend to say, natural revelation.

Let us move quickly ahead and glance at the dawn of the new creation! "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him" (NKJ Jn. 1:3-10).

Later in John's gospel, the Light in John's prologue speaks to us—our Savior Jesus Christ affirms: "I am the Light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life" (Jn. 8:12; cf. Rev. 21:23).

As the new creation dawns by the coming of the Light of life into the world (Jesus Christ), should we understand Christ's redeeming work in the world as natural revelation or special revelation? I think we tend to say that Christ's redeeming work is special revelation.

It seems that we understand the distinction—right? God's creation of light on the first day of the original creation is an expression of natural revelation, whereas God sending the divine Light, Jesus Christ, to usher in the new creation is an expression of special revelation.

The boundaries and the limits of natural revelation and special revelation are set. Natural revelation is a distinct and separate revelation, communicating God's imprint upon the created universe; special revelation is a distinct and separate revelation, communicating God's saving activity to humanity. Although distinct and separate, the two revelations are complimentary and do not contradict each other. Indeed, we have an efficient, tightly defined system that distinguishes both revelations. It has been said, therefore, that natural or general revelation provides the "evidences that a supreme being has created the universe, but we do not see that the being is triune, nor do we see a plan of redemption anywhere in the created order."2 Rather, for humanity to see that the Supreme Being is triune (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and for us to see God's plan of redemption, we need special revelation.3 Hence, special revelation communicates the triune God of the Bible and the plan of redemption focused in Christ.

With this typical distinction between natural and special revelation before you, permit me to ask this question: does the Bible present natural revelation and special revelation within such rigidly defined boundaries? In order to stimulate your thinking, permit me to set before you a few observations from the twentieth century Reformed apologist, Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987). Van Til questions whether nature reveals nothing about God's grace.4 In fact, he writes: "Saving grace is not manifest in nature; yet it is the God of saving grace who manifests himself by means of nature."5 It is not entirely apparent what Van Til means by the first phrase, but as one wrestles with the entire statement in the context of his apologetic, it becomes clear that Van Til holds the position that God displays his saving grace upon the landscape of nature. Perhaps, it can best be said in this manner: saving grace is not nature itself, but saving grace is always displayed by the free and sovereign action of God upon the natural terrain of created history. For this reason, Van Til does not speak of two distinct and separate revelations—natural and special; rather, he understands revelation as a unity that is disclosed in two forms—natural and special. Van Til writes:

Bavinck Contra NL2K/R2K

In this post, I argue that to be human is to be in need of both natural and special revelation.

In this article, Dr. Cornelis P. Venema discusses Herman Bavinck's view of the image of God. He quotes the following:

In this [Lutheran] theology the lines of demarcation between the spiritual and the worldly, between the heavenly and the earthly, are so sharply drawn that the result is two hemispheres, and the connection between nature and grace, between creation and re-creation is totally denied. The supernaturalist [or dualist] view is still at work here; the image of God stands alongside nature, is detached from it, and is above it. The loss of the image, which renders man totally deaf and blind in spiritual matters, still enables him in earthly matters to do much good and in a sense renders him independent from the grace of God in Christ . . . [In Reformed theology] sin, which precipitated the loss of the image of God in the narrower sense and spoiled and ruined the image of God in the broader sense, has profoundly affected the whole person, so that, consequently, also the grace of God in Christ restores the whole person, and is of the greatest significance for his or her whole life and labor, also in the family, society, the state, art, science, and so forth (RD 2:553–4)

He then makes a footnote comment:

Though it is anachronistic to put it this way, Bavinck offers in his criticism of the Lutheran view of the image of God an insightful assessment of what today is sometimes called the "two kingdom/natural law" view. Bavinck's point is that, just as sin pervasively corrupts all of human life "before God," so God's grace in Christ restores and perfects all of human life under Christ's lordship. To be restored and perfected as an image bearer of God is not to be elevated to a higher plane of supernatural life and existence, but to be perfected in the fullness of natural (that is, creaturely) human life in communion with God.

It is interesting to see how NL2K/R2K owes much to Roman Catholic nature/grace dualism.

The Antithesis a New Species Doth Not Make

Man, as made in the image of God, is intrinsically (by default) "wired" as a covenantal being. He knows of himself as a covenantal being and, though after the Fall, the sinner lives and moves in suppression of this fact, still he cannot escape it in the voice of his conscience and in the testimony of creation all around him.

What this covenatalism further presupposes is that both natural and special revelation bear upon man's conception of anything. Natural revelation both reveal the grace and wrath of God in the consistency of life-support systems in creation as well as the death dynamic that is at work in it, just as special revelation reveal the grace and wrath of God in the person and work of Christ and in the final, eschatological death that is alluded to by physical, temporal death. Man, as man, needs both natural and special revelation.

This realization has given me pause about NL2K (Natural Law Two Kingdoms Theology, or sometimes R2K). Sure, the baker does not need special revelation in order to engage in his baking, but this is merely speaking at a practical level. The baker, as an ontological human being made in the image of God, has upon himself the covenantal duty to reckon with both God's natural and special revelation at every turn. Is there an occasion wherein the baker does not bake as a human being? If not, then even in his baking, special revelation is required if he is to bake as a human being. What NL2K seems to imply is that there are two species of human beings, one for whom both natural and special revelation are of import and another wherein natural revelation will do. But the Fall did not create two different ontological classes of human beings but two different covenant relations to God in which man could either be a covenant-keeper or covenant-breaker (the antithesis). So when the baker bakes unmindful of God in special revelation, he bakes as a covenant-breaker and in fact sins in his baking.

To be sure, God uses the covenant-breaking baker to provide carbohydrate energy to both sinner and saint alike, but this is merely an outworking of His patience, intending the order and consistency in the present age to facilitate the smooth unfolding of redemptive history that will culminate in the age of glory characterized by revelational integrity.

Turretin on the Uses of Natural Theology

Some have imbibed the attitude of being seemingly allergic to any notion of natural theology (or common grace). Hesitant to afford the denomination of "revelation" to anything apart from Scripture, these people eschew the biblically-sound fact that all truth that can be properly called truth is either of the character of natural or special revelation, the former disposed to matters of the created order, the latter to matters of redemption.

Reformed Orthodoxy recognized the importance of natural theology, and Francis Turretin sheds light on its uses:

"Natural theology is useful to men, for we acknowledge its various ends and uses: (1) as a witness of the goodness of God towards sinners unworthy even of these remains of light (Acts 14:16, 17; Jn. 1:5); (2) as a bond of external discipline among men to prevent the world from becoming utterly corrupt (Rom. 2:14, 15); (3) as a subjective condition in man for the admission of the light of grace because God does not appeal to brutes and stocks, but to rational creatures; (4) as an incitement to the search for this more illustrious revelation (Acts 14:27); (5) to render men inexcusable (Rom. 1:20) both in this life, in the judgment of an accusing conscience (Rom. 2:15) and, in the future life, in the judgment which God shall judge concerning the secrets of men (Rom. 2:16)" (Institutes, I.1.4.4)

Item 1 speaks of what is commonly called "common grace." Through the motions of divine providence, God reveals Himself to every human being as the first cause of every creaturely benefit that he or she enjoys.

Item 2 refers to the subjection of every man to God's moral law (natural law implanted in every human heart) by which he discerns God's valuation of good and evil in various contexts and situations, inclined by conscience to choose the former and shun the latter. Though the depravity of man is such that the world is evidence of man having chosen evil most of the time, still it is not as debauched and sinfully convoluted as it can possibly be. Natural law maintains order in society inasmuch as man submits to it, directed and ordered by divine providence.

Item 3 makes much of the fact that man is man because man thinks, and is truly man when he thinks God's thoughts after Him. The intellectual faculties of man were created by God to be the means by which he apprehends God's truth as displayed in nature and salvation.

Item 4 builds on item 3 in that, seeing the wonders of God within himself and in the wonders of creation all around him through reason, man is then moved to seek the means by which he can be made right with God through faith.

Item 5 builds on item 4 in that men do not naturally go the extra mile from natural revelation to special revelation, and that this failure expresses itself continually, temporally, in a nagging conscience (the law accusing), and terminally, in the eschatological eventuality of hell.

Juicing and Natural Theology

I've been juicing for the past 2 weeks or so now, and I must say that it certainly feels good to be doing this little extra thing for my health.

The "rule" is that beetroot, apple, and carrot should be the staple of the concoction, upon which one can add all sorts of other fruits and vegetables. I've been juicing bell pepper, bitter gourd, cucumber, cabbage, onion, garlic, unripe mango, potato, etc.

The star of the show is beetroot. This dark purple root crop has all sorts of "magical" properties. Read about them and be enticed here.

Calvin Loved Animals

I've been a lover of nature, and of animals specifically, for as long as I can remember. I've had a monitor lizard, a water snake, an iguana, a sulcata tortoise, many red-eared sliders, rabbits, birds, fish (Bettas, Arowanas, Oscars, etc.), a rhesus macaque, a host of mutts, a couple of German Shepherds, a couple of Rottweilers, a Bullmastiff, and about 10 or more American Pitbull Terriers at a single time (discounting the results of my breeding efforts) for pets—and that's just off the top of my head right now! All that is to reiterate: I love God's creation generally and animals specifically. And it seems Calvin did too:

"One reoccurring element of Calvin's theological language of nature—even overlooked by contemporary theologians reevaluating his theology of creation—is his fascination with the animal kingdom.....Calvin saw every living thing, no matter how humble or harmful, as a vehicle for the self-disclosure of its Maker.....Nature for Calvin was not a bare environment for humanity, but a theater alive with non-human creatures clamoring for God as their true end and possessing dignity in their own right. Nature also functioned as the rich seed bed for human language, a 'vast dictionary and grammar' (to use Bushnell's terms) for figures that enhance our comprehension of human existence and contemporary affairs. The animal kingdom in air, land, and sea may be a channel for the natural knowledge of God and a blessing to the life of humanity, but for Calvin it was also a living lexicon from which to cull provocative metaphors for the animation of human self-understanding and the quickening of theological debate." (Peter A. Huff, CALVIN AND THE BEASTS: ANIMALS IN JOHN CALVIN’S THEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE, JETS 42/1 [March 1999])

I do believe that if Calvin had lived in our day and age, he would've been glued to the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet or National Geographic during those times that he would pause from his tome-writing (which were probably few and far between). :-D

"Natural Law = Decalogue" — Calvin

"Natural law was promulgated by God at creation and implanted in the human consciousness. We only know God because he has revealed himself, but he has revealed himself to us from the very beginning. Thus to say that a law is natural is to say that it is revealed in and constitutional to creation.

In the Institutes, he (Calvin) equated explicitly natural law to the Decalogue. At the beginning of his exposition he said 'that interior law' (lex illa interior) 'which we have described as written, even engraved upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the Two Tables.' In book four, discussing civil polity, Calvin made the same point.

It is a fact that the Law of God which we call the moral law is nothing less than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has inscribed upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it.

Far from being a conduit of the Classical or Thomistic view of the lex naturalis Calvin made a very sophisticated revision of the concept of natural law by removing it from the Stoic and Thomistic corpus of 'self-evident' truths and identifying it with the content of the Law revealed in the Garden and at Sinai and in the Sermon on the Mount" (R. Scott Clark, Calvin on the Lex Naturalis, Stulos Theological Journal [6/1-2, May-Nov 1998], 17-18, italics original).

Gone Berserk on bin Laden

Still on the bin Laden issue, I'd like to showcase two blog posts that highlight the stark difference in opinion that inevitably ensues from a non-recognition and a recognition of the two distinct ways (two kingdoms) by which God rules the affairs of men, respectively.

First off, we have this post by James Jordan, a Federal Vision bigwig:

"Now, I have to say that I'm not happy with how Osama was killed. The Bible is fairly clear about this. If we look at the examples in Judges and how Samuel dealt with Agag, it is likely that Osama should have been captured, brought to Washington, and then stood up in front of the President. The President should have then said, 'In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is my privilege and joy as a minister of vengeance (Romans 13) to avenge my people.' After all, serving as God's avenger is surely a privilege and a joy, for serving in any calling is a privilege and joy. Then the President should have pulled out a .44 Magnum, which as you may know is the world's most powerful handgun, and blown Osama's head off. Yes, it's hard to imagine The Fool doing this, or even his predecessor. But it's what the Bible shows should have been done. It is his job, not the job of some soldier or underling."

Secondly, this one by Michael Horton, a proponent of 2K theology:

"Cultures are the most dangerous when they invoke holy texts for their defense of holy land through holy war. However, Christians have no biblical basis for doing this in the first place. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus clearly abrogated the ceremonial and civil law that God had given uniquely to the nation of Israel. Now is the era of common grace and common land, obeying rulers—even pagan ones—and living under constitutions other than the one that God gave through Moses. As Paul reminds us in Romans 13, secular rulers are given the power of the temporal sword—finite justice—while the gospel conquers in the power of the Spirit through that Word 'above all earthly pow'rs.'"

I think even the light of nature would move the cursory reader to conclude that the former position, the one of Jordan, is a bit wacko. Theologically, though, it loses even more ground. Kim Riddlebarger shares some of the basics of Two Kingdoms theology here, and Michael Horton answers some questions here.

  

Interesting Discussion on the 2K

The secret handshake of spirituality-of-the-church men...

and

Putting a Point on Two Kingdoms

What Is "Natural Law"?

"Natural law is the moral revelation that God gives in creation itself. Romans 1:18-32 speaks of things that may be known of God from creation, including a great deal of moral knowledge. Romans 2:14-15 speaks of the law of God being written on people's hearts, such that even those without access to the law revealed in Scripture are held accountable to God through their consciences. Many prominent Christian theologians have identified natural law as the standard for civil law and government, including not only medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas but also reformers such as John Calvin. Thus, acknowledging the importance of natural law is neither unbiblical nor foreign to historic Christian theology.

...

When we as Christians come into contact with unbelievers, we eagerly proclaim Scripture's message of salvation to them, with hopes that they will submit to that message and believe in Christ. But even if they do not, we must still deal with them respectfully as fellow citizens with whom we share a common life in the public square. Is it possible to have genuine moral interaction with them on matters of political or social concern, even if they will not accept the authority of Scripture's teaching? Since we are called to live at peace with all people as far as possible (Rom. 12:18), this is undoubtedly an important question.

Here is one area in which natural law becomes a helpful resource. When appealing to natural law, believers need not feel that they are compromising their Christian convictions, for natural law is authoritative and true; it is part of God's own revelation, after all. Neither need Christians fear that they are appealing to a standard that is unknown or foreign to unbelievers; God has inscribed the natural law on the heart of every person (Rom. 2:14-15), and all people know the basic requirements of God's law, even if they suppress that knowledge (Rom. 1:19, 21, 32). Most every unbeliever, in fact, accepts the truth of at least some aspects of the natural law. True, they do not accept it for what it really is, the revelation of the living and triune God. But most people, when pressed, would admit that acts such as murder, stealing, and lying are immoral, and they themselves generally avoid such actions. Most people would also claim that law and government exist to protect people against those who would kill, rob, or defraud them.

The fact that most unbelievers, though refusing to worship the true God, still to some significant extent acknowledge and live by the truth of his law as it is known by nature is something for which Christians can be very grateful. Because of this, societies generally retain some degree of order and justice. And it provides Christians with the opportunity to engage unbelievers in genuine moral dialogue on issues of public policy. But how exactly does one make arguments from natural law and thus put it to use in the public square?"

— David VanDrunen, Natural Law and Christians in the Public Square, Modern Reformation, March/April 2006.