General Revelation

Studies in Dogmatics

by G.C. Berkouwer

In this series rooted in the normative significance of Scripture, noted Dutch theologian G. C. Berkouwer examines great doctrines of the Reformed faith, developing and defending Reformed theology through interaction with a wide range of theologies and theologians. In this volume Berkouwer examines the question of the nature and reality of revalation, the claims of natural theology, and the radical character of the history of religion since the 19th century.

Genres: Theology

340 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1952

About the author

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer was for years the leading theologian of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands (GKN). He occupied the Chair in systematic theology of the Faculty of Theology, Free University (VU) in Amsterdam.

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FIFTH VOLUME IN BERKOUWER’S 14-VOLUME “STUDIES IN DOGMATICS”

Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996) taught systematic theology at the Free University in Amsterdam. The other volumes in this series are: The Providence of God,Faith and Sanctification,Faith and Justification,The Person of Christ,Faith and Perseverance,Divine Election,Man: The Image of God,The Work of Christ,The Sacraments,Sin,The Return of Christ,Holy Scriptures,The Church. He also wrote books such as The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism,Modern Uncertainty and Christian Faith,Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought,A Half Century of Theology: Movements and Motives, etc.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1951 book, “When one reflects upon what theology calls God’s general revelation, he immediately faces a number of significant questions which have aroused agitated and even violent discussions in our day. These discussions chiefly concern the question of the legitimacy of acknowledging general revelation. It appears as the time when reformed theology could take the distinction between general and special revelation for granted is gone forever… Stiff opposition to the distinction between ‘general’ and ‘special’ revelation has arisen, and it is therefore desirable to give careful consideration to the questions that are asked in this connection. We must study the material in detail because some charge that the distinction between general and special revelation does not do justice to the UNIQUE and ‘once-for-all’ character of the redemptive revelation in Jesus Christ.” (Pg. 8)

He notes, “Natural theology involves KNOWLEDGE of God. From the history of church and theology, we can readily learn what was meant by this knowledge. It is sharply distinguished from that knowledge which is derived from special revelation through Christ and the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Natural theology or knowledge of God was considered possible by another means, viz. by way of nature and human reason… there are two sources of knowledge of God, and the second source, special revelation, is much RICHER than the other. However, the greater fulness of the second source does not permit one to neglect the first source. Natural theology does not even pretend to be able to construct a system by means of human nature. It does not pretend to be an AUTONOMOUS theology… Its content … rests basically upon revelation. This revelation … is not the special revelation in Christ and the Holy Scripture, but the general revelation in creation, in created reality… It is simply a NATURAL knowledge which man gets through the medium of created reality, and therefore is completely different from the supernatural knowledge of God which is only possible by means of supernatural special revelation.” (Pg. 61-62)

He observes, “we are fully conscious of the fact that we are constantly surrounded by numerous dangers, and especially by one danger, viz. that we are speak of revelation but that we make this revelation of God subject of our subjective schemes and conceptions of our preference by which the fulness of revelation is limited and misjudged. It is by no means hypothetical that man constructs a revelation-concept which actually is nothing but a projection of his own subjectivity. More than once the Christian idea of revelation has been disqualified as such a subjective, human projection. And although it is obvious that such a psychological analysis of the revelation-concept is the result of enmity against God’s revelation itself, still we shall have to be continually on our guard against this very real danger, knowing the history of human thinking.” (Pg. 87)

He asserts, “that the reasonable mind, which wishes to search for the revelation of God OUTSIDE OF REVELATION and thus wishes to determine it, cannot furnish proof must absolutely be maintained, whereas faith, which is certain, may boast of its riches instead of lament its poverty. Thus the Church has in faith confessed to have recognized and listened to the Lord’s voice in Holy Scripture. She was conscious of the fact that there were also other so-called book-religions…Faith cannot refute this relativism with a rational argument by which the revealing nature of Scriptures is ‘proven’ as is done with regard to the Koran or the Book of Mormon, but solely with the profession, ‘Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.’ For this reason it is possible for the Church to speak of God’s revelation only on the basis of God’s Word in which she finds her norm and source for all her discussion of revelation.” (Pg. 89)

He notes, “On the basis of numerous Scriptural data it cannot be denied that within the revelation God HIMSELF comes to us. He himself dwells in the inaccessible light and thus, revealing himself, he comes to the world. No aprioristic schematization whatsoever is therefore able to ignore this revelation and make limitations or mark borders. Only faith, which penetrates schematism, finds rest in the reality of revelation. For, this faith is not a CREATIVE but only a RECEPTIVE and ATTENTIVE nature.” (Pg. 101)

He states, “The exclusivity of salvation is truly exclusive. Whoever is offended because of this salvation IN Christ and therefore searches for wider perspectives and thus for other revelations besides Christ, will finally grope around in utter darkness. In times like we are living in we can everywhere detect the pretension of ‘revelation,’ of the unveiling of the world’s mystery, and of the ‘mysteries’ of life. In such times it is imperative to fully realize WHAT we are looking for when contemplating general revelation. Only then will we be able to successfully reject the Christo-monistic idea of revelation, when from the beginning to the end the uncontradictable word of the Lord himself keeps echoing, ‘No man cometh to the Father but by me.’” (Pg. 113-114)

He suggests, “The nature-mysticism, the ‘cosmic feeling’ has crowded out all transcendent revelation. A ‘general’ revelation in nature is still mentioned, but this ‘generality’ sounds very antithetically in comparison with the revelation of the living, mighty God, who reveals himself freely and sovereignly. The evidence in natural religion becomes a penetrating light which automatically beams forth from men’s eyes. Therefore, there cannot be such a thing as a ‘mystery.’ All this is far removed from what Scripture teaches us concerning God’s sovereign operation from the mystery and inaccessibility TO the revelation. To the contrary: He himself shines THROUGH all things and anyone can see and find him in a DIRECT ‘contact’ with ‘nature.’ Thus considered, one has God at his disposal, because he simply has to reveal himself. He just cannot hide his face but simply must lift it up upon the world. Thus in all nature-religion and nature-mysticism the REALITY of sovereign revelation is at stake.” (Pg. 121-122)

Of Paul’s sermon at the Areopagus, he comments, “From the acknowledgement of the Athenians’ religiousness, Paul goes on to speak of the altar that he had seen to the unknown God. Their unusual respect for deities is marked in that they leave not even the unknown deity unworshipped. There was a strange paradox here. Worship assumes at least some knowledge, at least of the existence of the god. Paul… comes to grips with the pseudo-religion of the Athenians by way of this altar. He does not mean to complete what they already possess of true religion. On the contrary, what the Athenians acknowledge as ignorance has a far deeper meaning for Paul. He makes contact with the Greek mind by way of the altar and the unknown god; but his point of contact is the ignorance of the Greeks. And he sees this ignorance more profoundly than the Athenians’ own acknowledgement of it would agree to. He calls the Athenians to conversion from this ignorance; to them it is a sign of real religion.” (Pg. 143)

He asserts, “That obedience and disobedience must operate within the frame of God’s law does not explain a thing concerning the doing of the works of the law, because also the most radical disobedience exists and has its place within the scope of God’s providence, nevertheless it is therefore no less disobedience and void of all love of God and fellow-man.” (Pg. 183)

He points out, “irrespective of Divine Revelation, there are norms and principles in life which concern all, therefore the positive law may never contradict the NATURAL LAW, but the former must be or made to be in agreement with it. This natural law is in accordance with the will of God the Creator, founded in the reasonable nature of man, and thus it is indestructible. It is possible to know the natural law with one’s reason outside of faith. The natural reason knows God to be the source of this law, but does not yet at all imply the Christian idea of God.” (Pg. 193)

He says, “Opposition to the doctrine of natural law will be necessary and justified if it aims at the apparent attempt to arrive, outside of faith, at common convictions as an appeal to a self-consuming world, because then all objections remain, against its superficiality, its idealism, its mythology, and its optimism. But this criticism of natural law---rationalistic or irrationalistic---may not become a denial of the unavoidable divine orderings which are truly and correctly known only by faith, but which in their undeniable goodness and wisdom continuously accompany the struggle of mankind in God’s doings. Considered in this light we can only be grateful for that which opposed this chaos. But at the same time we may not build upon this resistance because time marches on in the dynamics of secularization. The alienation of a people or continent from Christ is never a static situation but a fast deterioration and an estrangement also from the general conceptions of justice and righteousness. This is the problematic aspect… of the ‘rights of man’ and of the appeal to the universal consciousness of righteousness and justice.” (Pg. 213-214)

He observes, “Of course, it is foolish to try to prove the existence of the Creator of human life, as well as man’s creation after God’s image, from the interest, the tension and impasse of many an anthropology. But we may say in the light of Scripture, that the reality of God’s revelation in man is manifested in the confused transcendence-problem of modern thinking. But at the same time we note how God’s truth may be crowded out by a representation of man outside of revelation in which man’s transcendence rivals God’s true transcendence or ever replaces it. This reveals then insoluble problem of atheistic anthropological thinking which principally MUST find the road to TRUE knowledge of man blocked.” (Pg. 220-221)

He states, “It is not so that the Logos is the unsearchable, hidden origin of creation, but he was… the light of men… The creation of the world and of all things simply stands in this light, in HIS light, no matter how dark and veiled the eyes may be that look around in the world. The light of Christ is not known and recognized. The entire universe and all things are wrongly interpreted, wrongly seen. But this want of appreciation and this blindness do not abolish the nature of light of all things, created in Christ. To the contrary, all that is left here is guilt.” (Pg. 255)

He argues, “it is wrong to say… that the natural sciences ‘investigate’ God’s general revelation; and surely it is just as wrong to state that we owe our knowledge of God’s revelation in nature primarily to the natural sciences. This, it seems to us, is a toning down of the idea and the reality of revelation… we, of course, acknowledge wholeheartedly that it is our calling to investigate respectfully God’s handiwork. But the revelation of God in his works is a matter of God’s self-revelation, and that is not apprehended first of all by scientific investigation, but through faith…” (Pg. 289)

For anyone interested in conservative Reformed theology, this entire series will be of great interest. The diversity of the theologians and sources with whom Berkouwer interacts make this series a very stimulating reading project.

[Danny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Again, Berkouwer is excellent in his treatment of General Revelation. The only drawback for me was that he spends a great deal of time interacting with Barth et al, in discussions that in the main are not as important or accessible for most readers, as they are for the academic or historical student. It isn't difficult writing, but it shows that the work has aged.

In light of the current re-evaluation of Thomism and approaches to natural law and theology, this remains an important work defending a clearer Reformed view.

Greatly recommended, nevertheless.

[Brett Mclaughlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I ran into a friend at seminary the other day who saw I was reading Berkouwer. He shrugged and said that whenever he saw Berkouwer on the reading list, he skimmed the title, not really caring to read in depth. I was a bit surprised. While Berkouwer isn't an easy read by any means, he's writing excellent material.

This particular work focused on the tension between general revelation and special revelation. If there is something of God revealed in nature, is that revelation separate from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ? More importantly, is that revelation appropriated before a knowledge of Christ occurs?

In context, Berkouwer is reacting to the rise of natural theology in his day: the idea that God can be known through reasoning. This is the Thomistic position of the Catholic church, and today's children of the Enlightenment (those refusing to move into post-modernism) share the position. The problem with this, as Berkouwer points out with devastating clarity, is God is singularly revealed through the person and work of Jesus Christ to the believer.

Berkouwer then goes on to demonstrate that creation and natural revelation are invisible to the darkened mind of the unbeliever. It is only with the enlightenment that Jesus provides--rather than the 19th century thinkers--that natural revelation is perceived correctly.

It takes some time to wade through this book, largely because Berkouwer couches his writing and argument in the prevalent works of the day. You'll often feel you need to read four or five other books to even understand a line of thought. But perseverance is rewarded, and this book is a worthwhile endeavor. You'll see clearly the lines between what the darkened unbeliever's mind can and cannot comprehend.

[Melanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some people fiercely oppose the concept of general revelation; others not only embrace general revelation, but also praise it as a portal to natural theology. Between the two margins lies a sweep of perspectives that are impacted in varying degrees by the nature psalms, John’s gospel prologue, Paul’s references to Creation in Romans, the Roman Church, the Belgic Confessions, and the great thinkers of the Reformation. G. C. Berkouwer, in his book, General Revelation, navigates readers through the prevailing opinions, as well as the strengths and dangers associated with each one, and ultimately arrives at his own deduction on the subject. interesting book.