I. The Logical Importance of the Two Kinds of Revelation
The intimate relationship of epistemology and apologetics has already been emphasized in Part 1 of this course. Because any defense of the faith must assume or presuppose a doctrine of how we know about God, we may even say that epistemology is preliminary or fundamental to apologetics. In light of how foundational epistemology is for Christian apologetics, the structure of apologetics must be ruled by the structure of our epistemology. Epistemology, of course, deals with our knowledge of God. To put this another way, when we defend our faith, we must realize that our faith is the same as our knowledge of God. Therefore, defending our faith demands defending our knowledge of God.
When we study theological epistemology or the doctrine of the knowledge of God, we learn that the Bible itself distinguishes two sources by which we come to the knowledge of God. There are, in other words, two kinds of revelation. Because this distinction of two sources of our knowledge of God, or two kinds of revelation from God, is so foundational for the structure and study of apologetics, some time must be given to presenting the biblical evidence for this distinction and understanding its significance.
II. The Historical Background of the Two Kinds of Revelation
The historical introduction to apologetics has repeatedly suggested to us that there are two kinds of revelation. Again and again, we have seen the great defenders of the faith working with this distinction. Justin Martyr spoke of the operation of the Logos in the Greek philosophers and contrasted this with the revelation of the Logos to Christians. The Medieval Scholastics struggled with the relationship of faith and reason. Calvin, in the doctrine of the knowledge of God with which he began The Institutes, spoke first of the sense of deity and seed of religion planted in man and confirmed by God’s creation. He then came in the second place to speak of God’s revelation in the Bible. The early Princeton theologians spoke of reason or nature and contrasted this with revelation which for them meant only the Bible. Warfield learned to call the evidence for God given in nature, general revelation. Kuyper contrasted the natural and special principium. Finally, Van Til, following Vos, divided revelation into two categories, with each of these categories having two distinct phases or stages. Thus, in all sorts of ways our historical introduction has shown us the theologians of the church struggling with a distinction between two kinds of revelation. At the same time we have noticed all sorts of differences between these teachers of the church as to the exact character and significance of this distinction. We must, therefore, come to the Word of God and ask, “What is the exact nature of this distinction between the two sources of our knowledge of God?” An additional reason for this study is that this distinction is foundational to our whole approach to apologetics. We must, therefore, understand this foundational and controlling distinction as well as we can. Misunderstanding here would be like a crack in the foundation of our house of apologetics.
III. The Biblical Basis for the Two Kinds of Revelation
There are two passages which are very helpful in establishing the biblical basis for a distinction between two kinds of revelation and understanding the significance of this distinction. They are Psalm 19 and Romans 1:18-3:20.
Psalm 19
An examination of Psalm 19 makes plain that its thrust or theme has to do with God’s revelation to men. The psalmist worships and praises God for the glory of His revelation to men. In strict accordance with this theme and on the surface of Psalm 19 lies the fact that there are two great sources of the knowledge of God. In other words, God reveals Himself to men in two distinct ways. The significance of this distinction can be best understood and viewed by means of a graph comparing the revelation of verses 1-6 with the revelation of verses 7-14.
Romans 1:18-3:20
Romans 1:18-3:20 in many details follows Psalm 19. This is not surprising because a close examination of Paul’s reasoning in the passage shows that he was thinking of Psalm 19 when he wrote it. Again a chart will help us to place its teaching about the two kinds or categories of revelation clearly before us.
Other Biblical Considerations
Both in Psalm 19 and in Romans 1:18-3:20, the basic distinction between two kinds of revelation is the same. There is God’s revelation in creation. There is God’s revelation in the written law of God. The written law of God is the means of the redemption of God’s people. Therefore, the New Testament, which is both written and the means of redemption, must be viewed as part of the second category or kind of revelation.
The boundary line between the two categories of revelation is, therefore, becoming clear. Yet confusion may still exist with reference to some of the questions raised above. One key question has to do with what category the revelation of Genesis 2:4-25 should be placed in. Kuyper thinks because it is before the fall that it is part of the natural principium. This would make it part of general revelation. Others only distinguish between redemptive and non-redemptive revelation. Because the fall has not yet occurred in Genesis 2:4-25, it cannot be redemptive revelation. This would also mean that it is general revelation.
Contrary to such reasoning, this revelation must be seen, like the revelation of Psalm 19:7-14 and Romans 2:17f., as special or positive revelation. There are the following considerations:
(1) The source of the revelation of Psalm 19:1-6 and Romans 1:18-2:16 is creation. The revelation of Psalms 19:7-14 and Romans 2:17f. had its source in part at least in the physical appearance or theophany of God at Mount Sinai. The revelation of Gen. 2:4f. definitely fits into the latter category.
(2) This view of Gen. 2:4-25 is confirmed by an interesting parallel between Psalm 19 and Genesis 1 and 2. Jehovah, we know, is God’s covenant title; both in Gen. 1:1-2:3 and in Psa. 19:1-6 this title is absent with the title, Elohim, used without exception (1 time in Psalms 19:1-6, 29 times in Gen. 1:1-2:3). In both Gen. 2:4 and Psalms 19:7, there is a striking commencement in the use of the title Jehovah. (11 times Jehovah God in Gen. 2:4-25; 7 times Jehovah in Psalms 19:7-14). In these same passages the use of Elohim by itself is absent.
(3) The objections to this view can be answered. For instance, some say that the revelation of Gen. 2:4-25 is not redemptive, while that of Psalms 19:7-14 and Romans 2:17f is. The solution to this difficulty lies in remembering that there is a pre-fall and post-fall phase in both “general” and “special” revelation. Romans 1:18f. definitely teaches that after the fall, God’s wrath is revealed via creation, but this could not have been the case before the fall when there was no sin in creation. In the same way, the goodness of God originally revealed in creation now after the fall becomes a revelation of common grace: God’s goodness to sinful men. Thus, after the fall, general revelation reveals God’s wrath and common grace, things it did not reveal before the fall. Likewise, that kind of revelation, which we now know as redemptive, existed in a different phase before the fall. If we call this covenant revelation, we may say that the Scriptures (the present form of covenant revelation) are redemptive because they are post-fall covenant revelation. Even pre-fall covenant revelation had the same ultimate goal as redemptive revelation: the confirmation of man in an eternal life of happiness and holiness.
It appears that the Bible teaches that there have always been two kinds of revelation but that both these categories of revelation were modified at the fall of man. But what shall we call these two kinds of revelation? Many names have been given to these two kinds of revelation.
The most common names are general and special revelation. The problem with this name is that it implies that all special revelation was given to a selected portion of mankind. Before the fall, however, all mankind (both Adam and Eve) had special revelation. Thus, special revelation was general.
Another set of names for the same distinction is natural and positive revelation. The name natural revelation asserts that the first kind of revelation comes to us through nature. The name positive revelation implies that the second kind of revelation comes by means of something in addition to nature. It is true that “special revelation” originates in things that go beyond the natural order: theophanies, miracles, prophecies, etc.
Another set of names for this distinction is creation and covenant revelation. Again, creation revelation tells us that “general revelation” is given through creation. This is certainly an emphasis of Scripture. Covenant revelation reminds us that all “special revelation” is not redemptive. Before the fall, God intended to confirm mankind in a “covenant” relationship with himself through appearing to him in theophany and speaking with him face to face.
Whatever names we use it is important to understand the distinction. There have always been two kinds of revelation, but these two kinds of revelation were both modified in important ways by the fall and redemption.
We must conclude, therefore, that Geerhardus Vos (and Van Til following him) were the most precisely biblical of all the men we studied with regard to this matter. Let me remind you again of the diagram by which their position on this matter was summarized. It summarizes the biblical view as well.
Before we leave this study of the biblical teaching regarding two kinds of revelation, we must notice one more thing. General, natural, or creation revelation was always intended to form the context or theatre in which God revealed Himself to men. His revelation of Himself in creation was the backdrop of His personal dealings with Adam in the garden. It is still the backdrop or background of His dealings with sinful men. He comes to them in the gospel against the background or in the framework of His wrath and common grace now revealed through general revelation. Special, covenant, or positive (now redemptive) revelation was always the heart of divine communication to man in which a personal or direct relationship with man was initiated and on the basis of which it was to be conducted. Only the kind of direct, personal communication between God and man that takes place by means of this second kind of revelation could be the means of bringing man into a personal relationship with God. God reveals Himself at a distance in creation. He speaks face to face with men in the special revelation which has for its means theophany and prophecy.
IV. The Unavoidable Relevance of the Two Kinds of Revelation
The fundamental apologetic questions revolve around these two kinds of revelation. It is the business of apologetics to present the authentication of natural revelation as the context of our redemptive relationship with God and the authentication of redemptive revelation as the basis of our redemptive knowledge of God.
Even though Christian apologetics has frequently been distorted or has deviated from its true character, this basic structure of apologetics can be discerned in many treatments of it. Classical Apologetics in both its Catholic and Princetonian varieties distinguished natural and special theology beginning with the proofs for the existence of God and then moving to the argument for the Bible as His revelation to man.
It is difficult to avoid the idea that the logic of apologetics requires the distinction between the apologetics of natural revelation and the apologetics of special revelation. A caution is, however, in order at this point. There must be no strict separation of these two areas. As mentioned above, there was always the divine intention that natural and positive revelation supplement one another and function together. This inseparable relationship will be evident in the following exposition. It is the biblical doctrine of the authentication and apologetics of natural revelation that will be expounded first because it is the context in which positive revelation makes sense.[1]
[1]I want to make clear at this point that I am both aware of and in agreement with Van Til’s concern that we not defend, first, theism in general and, then, Christianity in particular. Cf. Greg Bahnsen’s emphasis on this as crucial to Van Til’s apologetic in Van Til’s Apologetic–Readings&Analysis, (Presbyterian and Reformed, Phillipsburg, 1998), pp. 102f. This is not the intention, and I do not believe that, this is the effect of my insistence that there are two kinds of revelation and, therefore, that apologetics may be structured around the issue of the authentication of this twofold revelation. I have made the point above that these two kinds of revelation were originally indissolubly related and that natural revelation continues to be the indispensable theatre and background of positive revelation. When I deal with the authentication of natural revelation, it will not be my intention to authenticate or vindicate an abstract theism, but Christian theism. When I deal with the authentication of positive revelation, it will be evident that it is only the existence of the God of the Bible (and not the existence of some abstract god) that provides the foundation and context for the authentication of Scripture.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
