Chapter 7.4

The Fingerprints & Face of God

The Present & Future Universal Revelation

 

Overall Objective

To understand those means of divine revelation through which God clearly reveals Himself to all humanity.

Table of Topics

A) The Present “Fingerprints” of God: The Existence & Preservation of Creation

A.1) The Divine Creation of the Universe

A.2) The Divine Preservation of the Universe

A.3) The Purpose of the Present Universal Revelation

B) The Future “Face” of God: The Destruction of Creation

C) Modern Misconceptions of Universal Revelation

C.1) Is Human History a Universal Revelation of God?

C.2) Is Modern Science a Universal Revelation of God?

C.3) Is the Human Conscience a Universal Revelation from God?

C.4) Is a Sensus Divinitatis or “Inner Light” a Universal Revelation of God?

C.5) Does the Holy Spirit Grant a Universal Revelation of God?

C.6) Is Universal Revelation Adequate for Saving Faith?

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

• Universal revelation is those means of divine revelation through which God clearly reveals Himself to all humanity.
• The present universal revelation of God is Creation.
• The future universal revelation of God will be the Consummation, in which Christ is revealed to all who have lived as their rightful King.
• The purpose of the universal revelation of Creation for unbelievers is to reveal God’s existence, and more specifically, both His wrath (cf. Rom 1:18) and His kindness (cf. Acts 14:17).
• The purpose of the universal revelation of Creation for believers is to reveal God’s glory.
• The purpose of the universal revelation of the Consummation for unbelievers will be to reveal and demonstrate God’s wrath, holiness, and judgment.
• The purpose of the universal revelation of the Consummation for believers will be to reveal and demonstrate God’s grace, mercy, and love.
• Heaven & Hell will be eternal universal revelations.
• There is a tendency among many to expand the types of universal revelation and also to suggest they can suffice as saving revelations. This is based on a man-centered idea of what we think God should do instead of what He does do.

 

We use the term universal revelation to describe: those means of divine revelation through which God clearly reveals Himself to all humanity. ^[1] There is some debate as to the different types of universal revelation and its intended purposes, and these topics will be addressed later in this chapter. Here, however, we wish to suggest that there are essentially two modes of universal revelation, one present, and the other future. The present mode of universal revelation is the existence and preservation of Creation, in which it can be said that we see the “fingerprints” of God. The future mode of universal revelation will be the coming Consummation, part of which will include the destruction of Creation, and in which all of humanity will see the “face” of God.

A) The Present “Fingerprints” of God:

The Existence & Preservation of Creation

A.1) The Divine Creation of the Universe

It is important to notice that the very first thing the Bible tells us about God is that He is the Creator: “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth” (Gen 1:1). The Bible does not attempt to prove that God is the Creator, it simply states it repeatedly. According to Naves’s Topical Bible, the Scriptures list nearly 150 such statements including:

You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the Earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them (Neh 9:6).

I am the LORD, Who has made all things, Who alone stretched out the heavens, Who spread out the Earth by Myself. . . . It is I Who made the Earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. (Isa. 44:24; 45:12)

Through Him [Christ] all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made (John 1:3).

 

Scripture leaves no doubt that Creation was intended by God to be a clear revelation of Himself to humanity. David exclaims:

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the Earth, their words to the ends of the world (Ps 19:1-4). ^[2]

The sheer mass and amazing intricacy of the cosmos, reveal a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and in considerable sovereign control. David says Creation speaks consistently, “Day after day,” and universally, “into all the Earth.” And Creation’s communication is to “declare,” “proclaim,” and “display” clearly the “glory,” “work,” and “knowledge” of God. Accordingly, James Orr (1844–1913) suggested that modern science has made us even more accountable to the Creator because we know so much more about the supernatural attributes of Creation:

[W]hile this outward revelation [of Creation] is constant, and in its essential content unchanging, it, too, in the nature of the case, is endlessly progressive. How immensely, e.g., has science, through the progress of discovery, enlarged man’s thoughts of God in space and time, revolutionizing, for it is nothing else, his whole idea of the cosmos! ^[3]

As discussed elsewhere in Knowing Our God, divine revelation becomes the object of human research, and the latter enhances the former. ^[4] Contrary to disproving God, science is increasingly revealing Him because He has left His mark so clearly on His Creation. Such a big God is hard to hide.

How big a God is He? Obviously we are speaking metaphorically, but we need to ponder the Prophet’s proclamation that our Creator:

measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, [and] with the breadth of His hand marked off the heavens. . . . [He] held the dust of the Earth in a basket, [and] weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance. (Isa 40:12)

Imagine a single hand big enough to be cupped and able to hold all the waters of the Earth. Maybe start smaller and even imagine a hand big enough to hold the water in your bath tub. He is a big God.

And He is powerful:

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He Who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of His great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing. (Isa 40:26)

It is interesting to ponder specifically the divine purpose behind the creation of the stars. There would seem to be no practical or essential reason for their existence, as there is, for example, the sun. It would seem that our solar system, and life on Earth itself, would be able to exist without the multitude of stars that peer at us from billions of miles away. So why did God put them there? It is perhaps only because of the Creator’s desire to provide humanity a clear and unavoidable communication of His “eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20).

There is no human number adequate to reflect the number of stars in all the solar systems in all the galaxies in all the Universe. And for every star, there is probably a multitude of orbiting bodies just as in our solar system. The human mind can only comprehend a fraction of what is “out there,” and the human eye actually sees much less, even with our technology. And yet every single galaxy, solar system, sun, planet, and asteroid was created by God and is maintained by Him. All of this to tell humanity that He is there and deserves our worship. ^[5]

Often the universal revelation of God through Creation is confined especially to its inanimate parts. However, it includes us as human beings as well. John Frame, Professor of Theology at Westminster writes:

We are made in the image of God, and, whatever that means, it means at least that we are revelation. . . . Even unbelievers cannot escape the revelation of God in their own persons, any more than they can escape God’s revelation in the facts of Creation external to them. God’s reality is stamped on every fact; it is found wherever we look, outward or inward. ^[6]

A.2) The Divine Preservation of the Universe

Included in universal revelation that comes through God’s Creation, is the idea of God’s providence, ^[7] or rather, the maintenance of His Creation. The initial miracle of Creation “in the beginning” (Gen 1:1) included the divine implementation of natural laws that sustain the Universe’s order. No human observed the supernatural act of God on “the first day” of Creation when “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Gen 1:3, 5). However, we now constantly observe the “divine power” that was infused into Creation that day and which continues to energize the natural laws which maintain it. This subsequent and enduring order and power in Creation is at least part of what humans recognize as supernatural. In other words, the natural laws which God implemented in the original Creation are so constant, powerful, and finely tuned for sustaining life and the created order that they have a supernatural effect.

We define this supernatural-looking maintenance of Creation as divine providence. Because God accomplishes it through the natural laws He has built into Creation, it does not involve a constant miraculous intervention. In other words, God only needed to command “Let there be light” once, and that command has constantly been obeyed by Creation without God having to constantly give the command. No doubt, it is the power of God operating that sustains the Universe, but it is a power emanating from the natural laws God established, not from direct, continual, miraculous interventions into Creation. ^[8]

Because the sustaining power of Creation is God’s power, He is rightly deemed as the Caretaker of Creation and given the credit for the natural laws that work for Him to sustain us. Accordingly, we read in Psalms: “O LORD, you preserve both man and beast (Ps 36:6) and it is God, “Who gives food to every creature” (Ps 136:25). Likewise we read in Psalm 104:

He waters the mountains from His upper chambers; the Earth is satisfied by the fruit of His work. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate– bringing forth food from the Earth. . . . These all look to You to give them their food at the proper time. When You give it to them, they gather it up; when You open Your hand, they are satisfied with good things. When You hide Your face, they are terrified; when You take away their breath, they die and return to the dust (Ps 104:13-14, 27-29; cf. Ps 65:9-11; Job 34:14-15; Neh 9:6; 2 Pet 3:7).

The King as well, reminds us that “your Father in Heaven . . . causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt 5:45; cf. 6:25-34). Finally, the Apostle Paul seemed to recognize divine providence as a means of universal revelation when he used God’s gracious and obvious maintenance of Creation as an apologetic device in an evangelistic address to the people of Iconium, saying that God: “has not left Himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; He provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:17; cf. 17:24-7). The Apostle implies that the people should have recognized the Creator as the source of these things, making them a universal revelation of His kindness and power.

All of these outworkings of the original miracle of Creation are a universal revelation of God. Accordingly, the Apostle writes:

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made [including the natural laws that are working] so that men are without excuse. (Rom 1:18-20)

A.3) The Purpose of the Present Universal Revelation

Both Creation and its subsequent preservation are nothing less than a loud, unavoidable, “in your face” communiqué from the Creator to all humanity that He is there. It is interesting to note that the Apostle implies the communication of two different messages. As noted above, the ongoing preservation of Creation is a demonstration and revelation of the “kindness” of God (Acts 14:17). However, in Romans 1 the Apostle says that Creation is also a revelation of His “wrath” (v. 18).

It might be asked how does Creation communicate “the wrath of God”? (v.18) First, it clearly communicates the existence of a Creator Who is worthy of the worship that unregenerate humanity refuses to give Him. God designed this message to be clear and unavoidable. Obviously, the Apostle does not mean that all of “what may be known about God is plain” (v. 19), including all of His “power” and “nature” (v. 20). However, ever “since the Creation” (v. 18) certain things about Him have been made plain to both the human eye and the human mind. In fact, the communication from Creation has been so clear and universal, that everyone is “without excuse” (v. 20).

However, unregenerated humans choose to rebel against this revelation, and “suppress the truth” (v. 18), and as the Apostle says, “although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him” (v. 21), but instead, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (v. 25). Humans are fully capable of understanding that if there is a Creator, and He created them, that they owe Him their worship. And this is precisely why they will not believe this, as they desire to be their own god, rather than serving the real God. Because of the unregenerated, God-hating state of humanity then (cf. Rom 8:5-8), this revelation of the Creator’s existence becomes a revelation of wrath to rebels.

As we have written elsewhere:

Some may suggest the Creation has failed on this point, as particularly atheists profess to see no revelation of God in it. Along these lines, one of the more famous atheists of the twentieth century, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), wrote in his book, Why I Am Not a Christian:

God and immortality, the central dogmas of the Christian religion, find no support in science. . . . No doubt people will continue to entertain these beliefs, because they are pleasant, just as it is pleasant to think ourselves virtuous and our enemies wicked. But for my part I cannot see any ground for either. ^[9]

On the contrary, the Apostle Paul wrote:

The wrath of God is being revealed from Heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the Creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–His eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking [dialogismois: “reasoning”] became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Rom 1:18-23)

 

Accordingly, we have written elsewhere: ^[10]

[H]umanity is guilty, justly condemned, and “without excuse” (v. 20) for not responding correctly to the message of Creation. There are several reasons why. First, the message is unmistakable, “plain” (v. 19), and “clearly seen” (v. 20). Secondly, the God-given faculty of human reason is dependable and powerful enough to understand there is a Creator by recognizing His handiwork in the supernatural order and immensity of Creation. Like deciphering 1+1+1=3, God has made the mind fully capable of observing the data of Creation, concluding there is a Creator, and further deducing enough about His character, that they would infer that they owe Him their worship. And those theological conclusions are hardly more difficult or complex than a simple mathematical conclusion. . . .

However, the ultimate reason we are “without excuse” is because all reasoning humans really do understand the message of Creation. . . . While David insists that all humanity has “heard” the message of Creation (Ps 19:1-4), the Apostle insists they have “seen” it (Rom 1:20). Creation is not simply an opportunity to see God that some will miss, and others will recognize. On the contrary, the Apostle says that if a person has seen Creation, then they have also automatically and inexcusably “clearly seen” and “understood” both God’s “eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20).

Accordingly, NT scholar Douglas Moo comments:

Just what does the Apostle mean when he claims that human beings “see” and “understand” from Creation . . . that a powerful God exists? Some think that Paul is asserting only that people have around them the evidence of God’s existence and basic qualities; whether people actually perceive it or become personally conscious of it is not clear. Paul’s wording suggests more than this. He asserts that people actually come to “understand” something about God’s existence and nature. How universal is this perception? The flow of Paul’s argument makes any limitation impossible. ^[11]

As we have written elsewhere:

It is not that Creation might reveal “the wrath of God . . . from Heaven” but it, like any other divine revelation, fulfills the purpose God has for it, and it universally, unrelentingly, and unmistakably does reveal God’s anger toward sinful humanity. The divine communiqué from Creation is that the One powerful enough to create the Universe we see, is also very angry about our wickedness. Such a scary truth is understandably repressed. How would you like to be reminded day after day by a big billboard in the sky that the Creator is really ticked off at you because of the way you are living? ^[12]

 

Accordingly, we demonstrate fully elsewhere that atheists, like all reasoning humanity, really do understand the divine revelation of Creation. ^[13]

For the regenerated Christian, however, God’s Creation is a revelation of His glory. The breadth, beauty, and intricacies of what He has fashioned leaves us in awe of His wisdom, creativity, and power. We no longer suppress the communication from Creation, but rather exalt in it, and worship God for the glory that is revealed in it. ^[14]

Pastoral Practices

• Church historian Mark Noll writes:

When he was still in his teens, the young Jonathan Edwards wrote down an extensive description of the shape, construction, and purpose of a spider’s web. There are many true things we can say about the physical character of the web, but according to Edwards, the ultimate thing shown by the spider in its spinning is “the exuberant goodness of the Creator, who hath not only provided for all the necessities, but also for the pleasure and recreation of all sorts of creatures, even the insects. ^[15]

Take some time to study some aspect of God’s Creation and how it reveals the character of God. So often we can be like Moses who told God, “Now show me your glory” (Exod 33:18), desiring to physically see something of His power or love. But all we need to do is look around and up for we are surrounded with visible and constant demonstrations of who God is. Take some time to somehow enjoy God’s Creation. Particularly Swenson’s book mentioned below under “Recommended Reading” can open your eyes to the wonder of the Creation and the Creator. Share your discoveries with your church helping them to worship the Creator through the creation.

B) The Future “Face” of God: The Destruction of Creation in the Consummation

The second mode of universal revelation in which God intends to reveal Himself to all humanity is the events surrounding the Second Coming of Christ and the Consummation of His kingdom. While this aspect of universal revelation is usually neglected in discussions on the topic, it is actually the preeminent and fullest form of such revelation.

This “revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:7), is often referred to in Scripture (cf. Luke 17:30; Col 3:4; 2 Thess 1:7; 1 Tim 6:14; 1 Pet 1:7, 13; 4:13; 5:4; 1 John 3:2; Rev 22:4). This revelation will be universal in that everyone who has ever lived will eventually meet their Creator. For the regenerate, the Consummation will be a revelation of God’s grace, from the initial appearance of Christ, and for all eternity in Heaven (cf. Eph 2:6-7; 1 Pet 1:13). For the unregenerate, the Consummation will be a revelation of God’s wrath, from the initial appearance of Christ, and for all eternity in Hell (cf. 2 Thess 1:6-10; Rev 6:12-17).

Even the first event of the Consummation will be a universal revelation. The King made this clear when He warned us that when He returns He will not appear in obscurity like “out in the desert,” nor will He appear in private in some “inner room” (Matt 24:25-26). On the contrary:

For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. . . . [T]he sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ “At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the Earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. (Matt 24:27, 29-30)

The Apostle John makes this even more explicit when he described his vision of the King’s return: “Look, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him” (Rev 1:7). Likewise, the Apostle describes this universal revelation to unregenerated humanity when he writes:

Then the kings of the Earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him Who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! (Rev 6:15-16)

All living humanity will see the face of God in Christ at His return.

Likewise, all humanity that has ever lived will see their Judge at the “Great White Throne Judgment” which the Apostle John describes as follows:

Then I saw a great white throne and Him Who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from His presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne . . . and each person was judged according to what he had done. (Rev 20:11-13)

No doubt, it is before this great white throne that “every knee will bow before [Him]; every tongue will confess to God” (Rom 14:11; cf. Isa 45:23; Phil 2:10).

Then the Judge will pronounce His eternal sentence on every human that He ever created. To those who have been chosen “before the Creation of the world to be holy and blameless in His sight” (Eph 1:4), “the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the Creation of the world” (Matt 25:34). To the rest: “He will say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:41).

It is here, in the Consummation of the Consummation, that all of humanity will receive a direct, personal, and never-ending revelation of God. For the elect, Heaven will be a direct, personal, and never-ending revelation of God’s grace and love. For the rest, Hell will be a direct, personal, and never-ending revelation of God’s holiness and wrath. And while some may be able to ignore the present universal revelation in Creation, none will be able to ignore the revelation provided in Hell. ^[16] No one will be left out of this revelation, as all will live under the full potency of particular attributes of God, and that final revelation of their Creator will be one that they can never escape from. Indeed, Heaven and Hell will be the ultimate revelation of God because of their all-encompassing scope, undiluted experience, and eternal duration.

We see then, that each event of the end-time Consummation of God’s plan for humanity, from the initial appearance of the King to His eternal sentence from His throne, is a revelation of God’s love for the elect, and His wrath for the unrepentant, and all of this being a universal revelation for His eternal glory.

Pastoral Practices

• How the glory of Christ is revealed in all the aspects of His second coming would seem worthy of a Sunday morning teaching series.

C) Modern Misconceptions of Universal Revelation

It would seem that there is a tendency among Christians to expand the types of universal revelation beyond the two demonstrated above, and yet neglect any mention of the events of the Consummation. We might suggest the reason that the means of universal revelation are commonly expanded is because of the natural tendency to make God’s plan of salvation fit our human notion of fairness. The greater the number of methods of universal revelation and the more salvific they are, the more just we think God is. On the contrary, there are a multitude of things about God’s plan of salvation that will not conform to human ideas of fairness. ^[17] Nonetheless, the universal revelation of Creation is a very effective one and no others are needed.

However, again, the modes of universal revelation are generally expanded in modern theology. For example, Professors Bruce Demarest and Gordon Lewis at Denver Seminary define universal or “general” revelation as:

The disclosure of God in [1] nature, in [2] providential history, and in [3] the moral law within the heart, whereby all persons at all times and places gain a rudimentary understanding of the Creator and his moral demands. ^[18]

While these fine theologians reflect our belief that “nature” is a universal revelation, they add human history and conscience as well. We see little biblical or practical support for this, as we discuss further below.

C.1) Is Human History a Universal Revelation of God?

It is common for theologians to suggest that human history is a clear universal revelation of God to humanity. ^[19] The rightly respected Christian apologist Norman Geisler, for example, in his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics writes: “general revelation is manifest in physical nature, human nature, and history.” ^[20] Elsewhere he refers to human history as “the footprints of God in the sands of time.” ^[21] Similarly, the well known Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch says: “Scripture tells us that God has not left himself without a witness in human history (Acts 14:17).” ^[22] Likewise, Dr. Demarest suggests that Acts 17:26 is describing a universal revelation of God through human history. ^[23]

However, universal revelation is understood by most theologians, including Drs. Geisler and Demarest, to be a revelation of God’s existence that is so supernatural, available, and clear that it cannot be missed, leaving no human with any excuse for not recognizing and accepting its message. The course of human history would not seem to meet any of these recognized requirements for universal revelation. Even to the Christian, many historical events seem rather natural rather than supernatural. In other words, the reason that Creation is a universal revelation is that there is no reasonable, “natural” explanation for it. Few events in history could likewise be labeled. The foremost example may be the preservation of the Jewish race, which Christians can indeed recognize as the supernatural hand of God, but whether or not the rest of humanity is without excuse for not doing so is debatable.

The course of human history is simply not available or clear enough to be a universal revelation of God’s existence to all of humanity. As Baptist theologian Millard Erickson points out: “history (and its pattern) is less accessible than is nature.” ^[24] While Scripture affirms that God controls the course of history (e.g. Job 12:23; Ps 47:7-8; 66:7; Isa 10:5-13; Dan 2:21), it says nothing about some assurance that all of humanity will notice His control, and will be held accountable for not doing so. As we have noted elsewhere, divine actions are not divine revelation unless they are readily recognized by humanity. ^[25] In fact, many would understandably claim that some events in human history are proof that there is no God (e. g. the Holocaust).

What of the Scripture verses commonly used to support the suggestion that human history is intended to be a universal revelation of God? We will address the three primary ones. First, as noted above, in an evangelistic speech in Iconium the Apostle Paul tells the people that the Creator: “has not left Himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons (kairos); He provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:17).

Likewise, the Apostle tells the Athenians:

He made from one man, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the Earth, having determined their [not in original Grk.] appointed times [kairos “seasons” as in 14:17], and the boundaries [place, i.e. “Earth”] of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. (Acts 17:26-27 NASB)

Some theologians interpret the Apostle here as saying that the course of human history (“appointed times”), and specifically the course of national governments (“the boundaries of their habitation”), work as an apologetic and universal revelation of the existence of God. Rather, we would suggest that the Apostle is again referring to Creation, not history.

First, we can notice the biblical context. Just two verses earlier the Apostle had begun his apologetic speech by pointing to God as the Creator, not the mover of history, when he said, “Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of Heaven and Earth” (vs. 23-24). The immediate context of the Apostle’s apologetic appeal is Creation, not history or the makeup of nations.

Secondly we can notice the cultural context. Richard N. Longenecker explains that:

Contrary to the Athenians’ boast that they had originated from the soil of their Attic homeland and therefore were not like other men, Paul affirms the oneness of mankind in their creation by the one God and their descent from a common ancestor. ^[26]

This is additional proof that the Apostle is speaking of Creation as described above.

Finally, the Greek text would seem to support our interpretation as well. As noted in the quotation of Acts 17:26 above, “their” is not in the original Greek, and “times” is translated from kairos. This may be important, as some want to interpret the Apostle as referring to the appointed times and places of people’s births and the course of the history of nations. However, F. F. Bruce (1910–1990) notes that “times” should be understood as “seasons” (kairos) suggesting that the Apostle is simply repeating what he had said in Iconium recorded above in Acts 14:17: “He has not left Himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons (kairos).” ^[27] I. Howard Marshall concurs, stating that what the Apostle is pointing to in Acts 17:26 is “the goodness of God in providing for the needs of mankind.” ^[28] What we have here then is another description by the Apostle of the universal revelation in Creation that he is accustomed to pointing out (cf. Rom 1:18-20; Acts 14:17), rather than a reference to a whole other category of such revelation such as the course of human history.

None of this is to say that God does not reveal Himself through historical events. This is a major aspect of divine revelation as the Exodus of Israel and crucifixion and resurrection of Christ clearly testify. However, these events are personal revelation to God’s people, primarily known and understood only through Scripture. Accordingly, the respected Reformed theologian John Frame is correct when he says, “Scripture teaches clearly that we can gain knowledge of God through the events of nature and history in Psalms 8, 19, 29, 65, 104, 145, and 148 and in Acts 14:15-17; 17:17-28.” ^[29] However, whatever revelation of God has occurred through historical events has been a personal revelation, not a universal one. Because Christians know from the personal revelation of Scripture that God controls history, historical events are in the category of personal revelation to us. Similarly, there have been times when God has revealed Himself to pagans in supernatural historical events, such as the plagues in Egypt. But such revelation was not universal, but rather personal.

Accordingly, neoorthodox theologian John Baillie writes:

[W]e may have our doubts as to whether a uniform sequence of natural events could, taken by itself, have suggested divinity, or been apprehended by Plato or Chalmers or anyone else as the mighty work of God, if God had not at the same time revealed Himself in other and more intimate and more personal ways. The course of nature is above all things impersonal. But God is personal, and a person can reveal Himself only through some kind of personal dealings with other persons. ^[30]

C.2) Is Modern Science a Universal Revelation of God?

Some have considered the discoveries of science to be universal revelation. First, modern science is hardly a consistent revelation of anything at all, much of it being based on unreasonable and unfounded theories such as Evolution. Secondly, universal revelation is by definition available to all adult humanity, which even true scientific knowledge is not. Accordingly, Robert Thomas, Professor of NT at the Master’s Seminary reflects this fact and adds other reasons why scientific knowledge cannot be considered universal revelation when he writes:

Knowledge of general revelation should be common to all people. It is not something they must seek to discover. It is not hidden truth such as the mysteries of special revelation revealed to the Apostles. It is information that is common knowledge to all . . . and impossible for mankind to avoid.

Modern science is not general revelation, since most scientific knowledge is of recent origin, and only comprehensible to those with advanced training in the various scientific disciplines. . . .

The subject of general revelation is God Himself (cf. Psalm 19:6; Rom 1: 19-2 1; Acts 14:15-17; Acts 17:24, 28; Rom 2:14-15, etc.), not the physical world. . . .

Humanity’s invariable response to general revelation is negative (cf. Rom 1:18-21). For human discoveries to be categorized under the heading of general revelation, those discoveries must be objects of rejection by the non-Christian world, not revelations of truth. . . . [T]o suggest that discoveries of the secular Western mind are direct results of positive responses to general revelation is to contradict what Scripture says about unregenerate mankind’s response to that revelation. ^[31]

C.3) Is the Human Conscience a Universal Revelation from God?

Regarding the human conscience the Apostle writes, “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” (Rom 2:15). Such a statement has suggested to many that God has implanted a set of morals in every human’s conscience from birth, resulting in a universal revelation of His ethical standards. We have fully discussed elsewhere our reasons for suggesting this is not so. ^[32]

First, the Apostle does not specify how or when “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.” Secondly, there are some differences in the contents of people’s consciences, suggesting that people learn their moral code from their culture and experiences (i.e. human research), rather than having it fully implanted in them at birth (i.e. divine revelation). Thirdly, there are several passages of Scripture that indicate a good deal of development and training of the conscience (cf. Heb 5:14; Rom 7:7-8; 14:1-6). While human consciences broadly speaking contain a great deal of accurate knowledge regarding God’s moral expectations (e.g. you shall not murder), the source of this knowledge is not divine revelation from God, nor is such knowledge intended to be a miraculous demonstration of a supernatural being as Creation certainly is.

Accordingly, we have written:

[T]he contents of our conscience is a matter of human research rather than divine revelation. Different experiences, including punishment and reward, provide data to our conscience which is then trained regarding what is morally right and wrong. It would not seem that our conscience has built in “data” from birth, but rather, it is simply another aspect of our God-given reason that enables us to process moral convictions, just as our logical reasoning processes mathematical convictions. ^[33]

C.4) Is a Sensus Divinitatis or “Inner Light” a Universal Revelation of God?

In his monumental Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (1509–1564) referred to a sensus divinitatis (“sense of divinity”) or an inborn belief of God’s existence. ^[34] This part of Calvin’s theology has become very popular in contemporary theological discussions, especially among neo-Reformed epistemologists such as Alvin Plantinga, who suggest that humans are born with an innate belief in God. ^[35] In reference to the sensus divinitatis, Calvin wrote:

Indeed the perversity of the impious, who though they struggle furiously are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God, is abundant testimony that this conviction, namely, that there is some God, is naturally inborn in all, and is fixed deep within, as it were in the very marrow. ^[36]

Calvin seemed to differentiate this “sense of divinity” from the observance of Creation (cf. Rom 1:18-20) or the human conscience (cf. Rom 2:14-15), and is suggesting a third means by which humans universally possess knowledge of God. Accordingly, John Dowey, a recognized expert on Calvin’s epistemology, writes that according to Calvin:

God reveals himself to man internally by a direct perception of which Calvin distinguishes two elements: the sense of divinity [sensus divinitatis], and the conscience. . . . The conscientia takes its place next to the sensus divinitatis as part of the subjective revelation in creation. ^[37]

Likewise, in the context of discussing Calvin’s sensus divinitatis, Michael Horton has written:

Therefore, general revelation is indeed closely related to “revelation as inner experience.” There is an intuitive, inward, and direct revelation in the human conscience. ^[38]

Still, it is somewhat difficult to understand exactly what Calvin meant, and as Dowey remarks, “The sensus divinitatis in man is not very closely defined in Calvin’s thought. Although he uses it widely, we face real difficulties in describing what it is.” ^[39] However, Calvin’s meaning is clear enough to understand that he is suggesting another means by which humanity receives a universal revelation of God apart from the traditional ideas of Creation, conscience, and even our physical senses. ^[40]

In response to such a suggestion, we would point out that, first of all, it is widely agreed that there is no scriptural support for Calvin’s sensus divinitatis, and Calvin uncharacteristically did not provide any. Accordingly, while Peter Jensen actually supports the idea in his well-regarded book, The Revelation of God, he admits: “There is much in this idea that attracts, but it is worth noting that it lacks specific biblical support.” ^[41] Likewise, William Craig and J. P. Moreland write: “[W]e do not find in Scripture . . . any unambiguous support for Calvin’s . . . notion of an innate awareness of divinity.” ^[42]

Secondly, the fact that we are created in the image of God is also used as biblical support for Calvin’s sensus divinitatis and Reformed epistemology. However, the imago Dei is simply another aspect of Creation that humans reason from to produce a universal revelation. Therefore, this has nothing to do with Calvin’s sensus divinitatis as he described it as something separated from the rational observation of Creation.

Accordingly, we would suggest that whatever universal affects the sensus divinitatis is supposed to have, it can easily be explained with the biblical concepts of reasoning from Creation and conscience. The only innate faculties described in Scripture that are designed to lead people to a belief in, or fear of God are logical reason which observes the created order (Rom 1:18-20) and the moral reason of the conscience (Rom 2:14-15). There is no biblical support for a third faculty or process. Therefore, contrary to Calvin and a host of others today, we suggest that world-wide phenomena such as religions and a fear of God can easily be explained by the universal results of reasoning from Creation and the working of the conscience.

In a similar vein with Calvin’s idea of a sensus divinitatis, it is common for theologians to suggest that there is a kind of “inner light” in humans that reveals God to them. For example, Dr. Demarest writes in his entry on “general revelation” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology:

In the prologue to his Gospel, John makes two assertions about the eternal Word. First, “in him was life, and that life was the light of men” (1:4). And second, the Word is “the true light that gives light to every man who comes into the world” (1:9). . . . [I]t seems likely that in John 1:4, 9 the apostle has in mind the universal work of the Logos whereby the human mind is divinely illumined so as to perceive God as a first principle, much the same as Calvin’s “sense of divinity” or “seed of religion.” ^[43]

Dr. Demarest is clearly suggesting that there is an innate belief in God that Christ universally implants in “the human mind” at birth. It is clear as well in his article that he is distinguishing this from the human conscience or our observance of Creation. Along these lines, Matthew Fox claims: “We need to become aware of the Cosmic Christ, which means recognizing that every being has within it the light of Christ.” ^[44] We would question such an interpretation of John 1:9 on several fronts.

In the NIV the passage reads, “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him” (John 1:9-10). First, Dr. Demarest suggests this giving of “light” is a “universal work” of Christ, apparently assuming that the phrase “every man” literally means every single human being. However, all kinds of erroneous understandings of John’s Gospel result from automatically interpreting terms like “every,” “all,” and “world” in a universal way. Notice, for example, how the Apostle uses the universally sounding word “world” in verse 10 when he says that, the world did not recognize Him.” Obviously, this does not literally mean that every single human “did not recognize Him,” because many did. Therefore, the Apostle’s use of “every man” here cannot be automatically interpreted such that every single human being has received a revelation of Christ.

Secondly, Dr. Demarest claims that the “light” enables every human to merely “perceive God as a first principle.” However, the Apostle uses “light” in the context of revelation from Christ to refer to much more than just a knowledge of God’s existence. Rather, the revelation that comes with the “light” of Christ is a revelation of Christ as Savior and Lord. This is implied in verse 10 when the Apostle says that those who do not receive the revelation of Christ that comes with the “light” do “not recognize” Christ. More specifically, the “light” the Apostle is referring to revealed Christ, not just God, because it only shined while Christ was in the world. Jesus Himself is recorded by John as telling those who heard Him:

While I am in the world, I am the light of the world. . . . You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. . . . Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light. (John 9:5; 12:35-36)

So then, the revelation of the “light” is a revelation of salvation in Christ, not just of the existence of deity.

Thirdly, then, it would seem the “light” that the Apostle speaks of was a personal revelation of Christ through His Incarnation, rather than a universal revelation of God’s existence given at a person’s birth. In fact, to suggest that unregenerate humanity has any kind of spiritual, revelational “light” at all, in the metaphorical sense used in the Scriptures, would contradict its use throughout the Bible (cf. Matt 5:14; 6:22-23; Luke 16:8; John 12:46; Acts 26:18; 2 Cor 4:4; 6:14; Eph 5:8; Col 1:12; 1 Thess 5:4-5; 1 Pet 2:9).

Fourthly, Dr. Demarest suggests that this “light” is received by every human at birth. However, this idea of an inborn knowledge of God also comes from an unlikely translation of John 1:9. For example, consider the NIV which reads: “The true light [Christ] that gives light to every man was coming into the world.” Here, it is clear that the Apostle is saying that what “was coming into the world” is “the true light” or Jesus Christ. And in fact, this is how it is translated in every modern version except the KJV and NKJV. In the NKJV we read: “That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” This translation suggests that what the Apostle is referring to as “coming into the world” is humans, not Christ. This is interpreted by some, as Leon Morris notes, such that all of humanity is provided the “light of Christ” “at the time of his birth.” ^[45] However, there is a reason that only a few translations render it this way. As Dr. Morris further points out:

But the sense of the whole passage is against such meanings. And they contradict John’s practice. John does not normally speak of people in general as “coming into the world.” This is a description he reserves for Christ. Moreover, this verse stands at the head of a section dealing with the incarnation, where a statement about the incarnation rather than one about people seems required. ^[46]

In other words, the Apostle is referring to the “light” that “was coming into the world” through Christ’s Incarnation, not something given to all men at their birth. ^[47]

Finally, we would note that unfortunately, the idea of an “inner light” representing God to all humans is an ancient Gnostic idea that the NT writers were actually opposed to. ^[48]

In conclusion, regarding the whole idea of a universal, inborn knowledge of God, we have written elsewhere:

We affirm with the Apostle in Romans that even those with devil-darkened reason know that there is a God, but this belief is not simply implanted in them from the womb. As the Apostle explains: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen [with the eyes], being understood [by reasoning] from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Rom 1:20). There is no support here, or anywhere else in Scripture, for an innate or “basic” belief in God, but rather a reasoned belief in God based on God-given evidence. ^[49]

C.5) Does the Holy Spirit Grant a Universal Revelation of God?

Some theologians have suggested that there is a universal work of the Holy Spirit to reveal God and/or His moral standards to humanity. For example, Charles Hodge (1797–1878) believed:

That there is a divine influence of the Spirit granted to all men is plain both from Scripture and from experience. Already in Genesis 6:3 it is said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man.” . . . And the martyr Stephen tells the Jews, “Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). The Spirit, then, is represented as striving with the wicked and with all men. . . .

As God is everywhere present in the material world, guiding its operations according to the laws of nature, so He is everywhere present with the minds of men, as the Spirit of truth and goodness, operating on them according to the laws of their free moral agency, inclining them to good and restraining them from evil. . . . [It is] to His presence and influence we are indebted for all the order, decorum, and virtue, as well as the regard for religion and its ordinances, which exist in the world. ^[50]

Similarly, the Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof suggests that one aspect of God’s “Common Grace” is:

[T]hose general operations of the Holy Spirit whereby He, without renewing the heart, exercises such a moral influence on man through His general or special revelation, that sin is restrained, order is maintained in social life, and civil righteousness is promoted. ^[51]

The first thing that can be said about the suggestion of a universal ministry of the Holy Spirit is that many of the affects these authors describe can easily be explained by the actions of the human conscience. There is no need to invent some direct operation of the Holy Spirit to accomplish what the God-given conscience was intended to do. This would especially apply to Hodge’s description.

What of the Scriptures often used to support such a ministry of the Holy Spirit? We do not think they say what they have been made out to say. Hodge, for example, quotes Genesis 6:3 which reads in the NIV as, “Then the LORD said, ‘My Spirit will not contend [dîn “judge, rule”] with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.’” The correct interpretation of this statement hinges on the correct meaning of dîn which, like the NIV, the NASB, KJV, & NKJV translate “strive.” The idea communicated by such a word, of course, is that God’s Spirit is striving and “speaking” with humanity to encourage them to do right.

However, there is a great deal of debate as to how this word should be translated. Accordingly, many translations note that alternative translations are possible (e.g. NIV) and the RSV simply states that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. What then can we conclude? First of all, the Hebrew Bible (MT) does not easily support the idea of “striving” or “contending.” While the Hebrew root used here (dîn) can mean “strife, contention,” this is not the form of the word used here. ^[52] As Drs. Keil and Delitzsch note in their highly regarded OT commentary:

The verb [dîn] signifies to rule, and to judge, as the consequence of ruling. Ruwach [“spirit”] is the divine spirit of life bestowed upon man, the principle of physical and ethical, natural and spiritual life. This His spirit God will withdraw from man, and thereby put an end to their life and conduct. ^[53]

Literally, then, it would seem the text reads: “My spirit will not rule in man forever.” Possibly because the meaning of such a statement is unclear, the original translators of the Hebrew OT universally interpreted it as “abide,” thus the NKJV notes that “The Syriac, Targum, LXX [Septuagint], and Vulgate read abide.” Several modern translations do likewise, the RSV, for example, reading: “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years” (see also NCV).

This translation fits the context of the statement in several ways. First of all, the fact that God says humans are “flesh” should not be read to say they are sinful, but rather simply mortal. This is intended to be a reminder that God’s ruwach (“breath,” “spirit”) is what gives our flesh life. In other words, the statement should also be interpreted in the larger context of the opening chapters of Genesis where we read: “The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen 2:7). Likewise, just a few verses after the text in question, Genesis 6:17 states: “I am going to bring floodwaters on the Earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on Earth will perish.”

Thus, we suggest that Genesis 6:3 needs to be read in the context of a judgment upon humans to kill them, not a striving with humans to save them. The “spirit” spoken of does not so much relate to the Holy Spirit, but the “breath of life” that God breathes into humans to grant them life, and which He says He will take away, thus ending their life.

Like virtually all commentators, we will not be dogmatic on our interpretation of the Hebrew here, but suffice it to say, there is no adequate support here for the significant theological suggestion that the Holy Spirit is working universally with humanity, providing them with a universal revelation from God apart from Creation. Other verses that are mentioned to support such an idea are Isaiah 63:10 and Acts 7:51. However, it is clear that these are describing the activity of the Spirit among God’s chosen people in the OT. This is a special and limited work of the Spirit, and not a universal one.

As we turn to NT theology, we encounter a few other verses that may suggest a universal and revelatory work of the Holy Spirit. For example, the King told His disciples: “When He [the Holy Spirit] comes, He will convict [elegchei: “convict, convince”] the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment (John 16:8). Understandably, some Christians interpret this as a universal ministry of the Holy Spirit to every human being. ^[54] However, we would suggest that Christ is speaking of a special work that occurs with the preaching of the Gospel. This is implied a few verses earlier when Christ similarly remarks:

When the Counselor comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who goes out from the Father, He will testify about Me. And you also must testify, for you have been with Me from the beginning. (John 15:26-27)

In other words, the Holy Spirit was sent to accompany the ministry of preaching the Gospel so that hardened and spiritually dead humans can receive it. Elsewhere we have written:

[T]he Holy Spirit not only liberates our logical reason, but our conscience as well, which results in a proper recognition of our sinfulness. This is what Christ was speaking of when He said, “When He [the Holy Spirit] comes, He will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). It is in the human preaching of Christ that one hears of their need for a savior because of sin, but it is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that fixes the conscience in order that it may properly produce guilt. The Apostle speaks of this when he writes the Thessalonians: “We know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you [for salvation], because our Gospel came to you not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction” (1 Thess 1:4-5; cf. Acts 2:36-37; 2 Cor 4:2-7). ^[55]

The most convincing evidence that Christ is not speaking of a universal work of the Spirit in these verses is that His descriptions of the results of this ministry cannot be applied that way. Has every person received a testimony, witness, or revelation of Jesus Christ (cf. John 15:26 above)? Has every human been convicted and convinced by the Holy Spirit of the guilt of their sin, their need for righteousness, and their impending judgment (cf. John 16:8 above)? Obviously not, and so it would seem wrong to interpret Christ’s statements here in that way. ^[56] Accordingly, John Calvin commented on John 16:8:

It ought to be observed, that in this passage Christ does not speak of secret revelations, but of the power of the Spirit, which appears in the outward doctrine of the Gospel, and in the voice of men. For how comes it that the voice proceeding from the mouth of a man penetrates into the hearts, takes root there, and at length yields fruit, changing hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, and renewing men, but because the Spirit of Christ quickens it? Otherwise it would be a dead letter and a useless sound, as Paul says in that beautiful passage, in which he boasts of being a minister of the Spirit, (2 Corinthians 3:6) because God wrought powerfully in his doctrine. ^[57]

Likewise, and more recently, the British Bible scholar Max Turner, in his book on the Holy Spirit, writes:

[John 16:8-11] at first glance suggests the Spirit acts independently of the believer. But this overlooks the fact that the Spirit-Advocate is given to the disciples (not merely into the world, alongside them). And the import of the connection of 16:8-11 with 16:12-15 must be observed. The Spirit will convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment precisely by revealing the truth, and teaching its significance, to and through the disciples. 16:8-11 does not mean the Spirit offers independent witness; John knows of no witness by the Spirit that is not a witness through the church. ^[58]

All of this again demonstrates the danger of interpreting especially the Apostle John’s use of “world” automatically in a universal way, as is done here in John 16:8. We say dangerous because of the way that inclusivists and pluralists have used the idea of some universal striving of the Holy Spirit with all of humanity. As discussed elsewhere, these isms refer to those who believe one can be eternally saved without a saving, conscious knowledge of Jesus Christ through a knowledge of the Gospel. ^[59] For example, the popular and “evangelical” Bible scholar Clark Pinnock writes:

[H]ow is the voice of God heard outside communities where Christ is named? . . . Theology has not found it easy to handle biblical universality. It has tended to place so much emphasis on the uniqueness of the work of Christ that it has often left the impression that most members of the human race are without hope of salvation. Many people think that unless persons become Christians and church members, they are going to hell through no fault of their own, and there is no remedy. . . . Even today what I call restrictivist thinking holds sway in large parts of the church, though less now than before. . . .

Counting against restrictivism is not only God’s nature as Father and the universality of the atonement of Christ but also the ever-present Spirit, who can foster transforming friendships with God anywhere and everywhere. . . . The Spirit meets people not only in religious spheres but everywhere-in the natural world, in the give-and-take of relationships, in the systems that structure human life. No nook or cranny is untouched by the finger of God. His warm breath streams toward humanity with energy and life. . . .

There is no general [universal] revelation or natural knowledge of God that is not at the same time gracious revelation and a potentially saving knowledge. . . . A narrow outlook is now communicated by this ancient saying: “There is no salvation outside the church.” . . . It has come to mean that there is no salvation outside Christianity. ^[60]

Along the same lines, the Adventist theologian Norman Gulley writes:

We must hold together the two missions of the Holy Spirit: His going to every person privately (John 1:9), and His going to all He can publicly (Matt. 28:19-20). Those who receive innate enlightening and those who receive proclaimed enlightening are being evangelized by the great communicator of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit works through both to the same salvific end. It is not one without the other. ^[61]

Both Drs. Pinnock and Gulley, avowed Evangelicals, apparently agree with the Roman Catholic Church on the Holy Spirit’s supposed ability to eternally save people apart from the preaching of the Gospel. Vatican II states:

Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. . . .

Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery. . . .

While concurring with the importance to preach the gospel . . . God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the gospel to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:16). . . .

The Council sees in non-Christian religions some truths that often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. ^[62]

Any verse of Scripture that such a critical doctrine could be based upon has been dealt with above and we would suggest that such ideas stem from understandable human desires instead of dependable divine revelation. As will be further discussed below, none of the supposed modes of universal revelation are saving revelations. Because of this, and what may be a man-centered perspective on what God should do instead of what He does do, many have wanted to suggest that God’s revelation, and particularly a saving one, has been, and is now, more widely available than what the Scriptures indicate.

Such teaching is dangerous as well, as, despite the disclaimers that inclusivists and pluralists are usually quick to add, the consequences of such false doctrine could be harmful to the missionary work of the Church. If this doctrine is true, then why wouldn’t we stop sending missionaries into the world, who often go at the risk of their own life? Let us simply trust in this mystical, universal, and even pantheistic ministry of the Holy Spirit that is claimed. While surely such great theologians as Hodge, Berkhof, and Lloyd-Jones did not intend this application of their suggestion of a universal revelation of the Holy Spirit, it is an understandable result. We profess that the reason we continue to send missionaries to their death is because we do not believe such unbiblical human notions, but rather, stand on the word of God through the Apostle who wrote:

How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!” (Rom 10:14-15)

C.6) Is Universal Revelation Adequate for Saving Faith? ^[63]

We have thoroughly defined saving faith elsewhere as the type of faith that results in the complete divine forgiveness of sin and a supernatural regeneration which brings a person into an eternally saving relationship with God. ^[64] Inclusivists and pluralists contend that not only is there a universal revelation of the Holy Spirit which can produce such faith, but that the universal revelation from Creation and/or conscience can also provide enough information for someone to obtain such faith.

While we might wish otherwise, neither the most reverent awe of the cosmos, nor the deepest conviction of guilt through the conscience will bring salvation to the human soul, and at the Consummation, the universal revelation of God will be too late. In the context of the effect of the present universal revelation of Creation, J. I. Packer writes:

The pressure of this continual self-disclosure [in Creation] on God’s part produces idolatry, as the fallen mind in its perversity seeks to quench the light by turning it into darkness (Rom. 1:23ff.; cf. Jn. 1:5), but it does not lead to knowledge of God, or to godliness of life. God’s ‘general revelation’ (as it is usually called) of his eternity, power and glory (Rom. 1:20; cf. Ps. 19:1), his kindness to men (Acts 14:17), his moral law (Rom. 2:12ff.), ^[65] his demand for worship and obedience (Rom. 1:21), his wrath against sin (Rom. 1:18, 32), thus serve only to render men ‘without excuse’ for their ‘ungodliness and wickedness’ (Rom. 1:18-20). ^[66]

While a knowledge of God’s existence from Creation and a conviction of sin from conscience can be possible tools that God uses as part of leading someone to salvation, God has not designed them to be adequate to bring a supernatural understanding of His forgiveness in Christ. This is the difference between what John Calvin called “knowledge of God the Creator” and “knowledge of God the Redeemer.” The former is possible through natural revelation, but the latter requires a supernatural revelation of Jesus Christ through the proclamation of the Gospel (Rom 10:14-17, 1 Pet 1:23), and the spiritual awakening of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:14), both of which nothing in the Creation or conscience can provide.

Accordingly, Wayne Grudem states the case plainly in his Systematic Theology:

[I]t must be emphasized that Scripture nowhere indicates that people can know the gospel, or know the way of salvation, through . . . general [universal] revelation. They may know that God exists, that He is their Creator, that they owe Him obedience, and that they have sinned against Him. . . . But how the holiness and justice of God can ever be reconciled with His willingness to forgive sins is a mystery that has never been solved by any religion apart from the Bible. Nor does the Bible give us any hope that it ever can be discovered apart from specific [“saving”] revelation from God. ^[67]

Likewise, Dr. Demarest writes:

In a profound sense, God remains to the sin-blinded rebel “an unknown God” (Acts 17:23). Or as Paul put it, “The world through its wisdom did not know [God]” (1 Cor. 1:21). These statements affirm that general [universal] revelation fails to lead the unregenerate heart to the lofty prize of saving knowledge of God (Eph. 2:12; 4:17-19).

This is so not only because the sinner’s response to general revelation is consistently negative, but also because divine truths needed for salvation find no imprint in general revelation. If a person is to know God in a personal relationship of trust and obedience, he must gain a knowledge of God’s character and intentions that is of a higher order than general revelation is capable of providing. The sinner needs to know that God . . . encounters man in Jesus Christ, and that in His person God is seeking, forgiving, and healing Love.

But the sinner additionally needs to know God’s intentions toward him. He needs to know that God, indeed, purposes to save. As Carnell observes, “Until we have firm information on the subject, we have no sure guarantee that He who made us will not also destroy us.” Through general revelation, man learns broadly that God both cares and judges, but he knows nothing of God’s purpose for the sinner in special grace . . . the sinner must know what he must do in order to be saved. ^[68]

It is indeed humbling to recognize that even with the power and clarity with which Creation communicates our accountability to God, and our need for Him, it cannot break through the deadening, dumbing, and deafening darkness of our depravity. Looking from the vantage point of having received saving revelation from God through the word of God, we marvel at humanity’s inability to even notice God, let alone submit to Him. To know so much about the expanse and intricacies of Creation, and still to intentionally ignore the Creator, is perhaps the greatest proof and measure of both humanity’s utter wickedness and degradation, and our need for saving revelation. ^[69]

However, it must be said, as Dr. Demarest remarks, “Although [universal revelation] is non-salvific, it is not insignificant.” ^[70] Dr. Demarest suggests twenty some attributes of God that humanity can know through universal revelation, all of which can be summed up in the Apostle’s clear statement on the topic in Romans 1:18-20. Creation in particular does indeed provide very real information to all who see it, information regarding the existence and character of God. ^[71] The fact that humans suppress such revelation does not change the fact that they have received it. And the fact that they have received it makes them “without excuse” for not repenting and seeking God.

This God-ordained design is not only taught in the Scriptures but demonstrated in people all over the world, as the following suggests:

[T]he Yoruba people of Nigeria have a name for God, “Osanobwa,” that means, “he who blesses and sustains the world.” . . . [They] say that in the afterlife the person-soul, the Oli, will give account of itself before Olodumare, the supreme God. Since, as anthropologists testify, these convictions appear to have been arrived at apart from Christian or Muslim teaching, they must derive from God’s universal general revelation. ^[72]

This would seem a very practical example of what the Apostle meant by saying that universal revelation through Creation can inform people of God’s existence, “eternal power and divine nature” (Rom 1:20). So while universal revelation is not adequate to save, it clearly can have some value in preparing people for salvation, as even the Apostle himself used such information in evangelistic addresses (e.g. Acts 14:14-17). Accordingly, we read of the great missionary David Livingston:

All his life, David Livingstone tried to reconcile scientific pursuits with Christianity. As a teenager, he refused to read the Christian books his father gave him, preferring works on science and travel. The book that finally brought about his conversion was one that tried to fit together faith and science. ^[73]

Similarly, men like Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and C. S. Lewis (1898–1963) confess that God used scientific and historical truths to help convince them of the reality of God. ^[74] Along these lines, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli note:

Although [Thomas] Aquinas first learned about God by faith, Aristotle [384 BC – 322 BC] didn’t. He knew nothing of the Scriptures, but much about God. History proves that human reason unaided by faith in divine revelation can come to know the existence and some of the attributes of God-for example, that he is one, eternal, perfect, intelligent and the uncaused cause. Aristotle did just that. His reasoning was not rationalizing, for he had no faith to rationalize (except faith in reason itself).

[Personal] Revelation takes us for an easy ride up the mountain of truth in a divinely provided helicopter. Reason[ing upon universal revelation] struggles and scrambles up the hard, slow footpath, and doesn’t get nearly as far up. Neither way invalidates the other. But millions can get to the top in the helicopter, while only a few Aristotles can get more than a few feet up the path by walking. ^[75]

Indeed, even a Christian can recognize that Aristotle understood a great deal of truth from his human research, including a strong belief in a perfect, omniscient God. However, because he did not have divine revelation many of his beliefs were wrong. Accordingly, Richard Muller writes:

Aristotle clearly taught concepts that, although logically acceptable, did not conform to Christian revelation (for example, the uninvolved immutability of the first mover, the eternal existence of matter, and the passing away of the soul with the death of the body). ^[76]

While some may see Creation’s magnificence, only through God-given faith can we see its significance. We know very well even in the American suburb, let alone the African jungle, that knowing about God is not the same as knowing God. Contrary to what many believe today, and how they share the Gospel, there is a good deal more to salvation than just information. As Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) succinctly put it, “What a long way it is between knowing God and loving Him,” ^[77] and it is a love for God that demonstrates a saving knowledge of God.

Along these lines, John Calvin wrote in his customary memorable way:

It is therefore in vain that so many burning lamps shine for us in the workmanship of the universe to show forth the glory of its Author. Although they bathe us wholly in their radiance, yet they can of themselves in no way lead us into the right path. Surely they strike some sparks, but before their fuller light shines forth these are smothered . . .

The greatest geniuses are blinder than moles! . . . They are like a traveler passing through a field at night who in a momentary lightning flash sees far and wide, but the sight vanishes so swiftly that he is plunged again into the darkness of the night before he can take even a step—let alone be directed on his way by its help. ^[78]`

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our heavenly Father, we praise You today for the wonder and magnificence of Your Creation. Truly it reveals Your power and might. Thank You for revealing Your kindness to all mankind by designing Creation to provide for our physical needs so abundantly. Thank You as well for the “blessed hope” (Tit 2:13) we have of the return of our Lord Jesus Christ who will make “everything new” (Rev 21:5). Finally, we are humbled by the spiritual rebellion and blindness of humanity and pray that You would raise up men and women in our city, country and the world to boldly and clearly communicate the saving Gospel, and that You would enliven spiritually dead hearts to hear it and receive it. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

1. What are the two methods of universal revelation suggested in this chapter?
2. What are some Scripture verses that describe each of these methods of universal revelation?
3. What is the purpose of the revelation through Creation that we see described in each of the following verses: Psalm 19:1-4; Romans 1:18-20; Acts 14:17?
4. Why was it suggested that the Consummation will be the “fullest” revelation of God?
5. What will be the nature of the revelation that the elect receive in the Consummation? What will be the nature of revelation that the rest of humanity receives?
6. Does John 1:9 support the idea of an inborn, universal revelation of God’s existence? Why or why not?
7. Does John 16:8 support the idea of a universal, revelatory activity of the Holy Spirit? Why or why not?
8. Do the Scriptures support the idea that people can be saved through universal revelation?

Recommended Reading

• Knowing Our God chapter 4.13: The Insanity of Humanity — This chapter provides further discussion of unregenerated humanity’s response to the revelation of Creation and conscience.
• Knowing Our God 12.B: This section provides further discussion of the value of universal revelation.
• More Than Meets The Eye by Richard A. Swenson (CO: NavPress, 2000)– An inspiring and understandable synopsis of how God has revealed Himself in the wonders and intricacies of Creation, including the human body, light, the cosmos, and quantum physics.
• General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues, Bruce A. Demarest (Zondervan, 1982)– Good overview of issues and a biblical view of the topic. See especially chapters I, III, IV, VII, XI, and XII. Helpful, although often fairly technical reading.
• How Shall They Be Saved?: The Destiny of Those Who Do Not Hear of Jesus, Millard J. Erickson, (Baker, 1996)– Concisely explains the various views on the answer to such an important question and clearly communicates the biblical view.

Publications & Particulars

1. What we are referring to as universal revelation, most theologians refer to as general revelation. Under the latter term, the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology states:

   That divine disclosure to all persons at all times and places by which one comes to know that God is, and what he is like. While not imparting saving truths such as the Trinity, incarnation, or atonement, general revelation mediates the conviction that God exists and that he is self-sufficient, transcendent, immanent, eternal, powerful, wise, good, and righteous. (Bruce A. Demarest, “Revelation, General” EDT [Baker, 1984], 944).

   Obviously, such a definition of universal revelation does not account for infants or those otherwise mentally or physically incapacitated. ↑

2. The NASB translation of Ps 19:3 has been interpreted by some to mean that Creation actually doesn’t “speak.” However, the NIV translation is legitimate and fits the context better. For further arguments for the NIV translation see Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Baker, 1998), 191-2. ↑

3. James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (Eerdmans, 1952), 41. ↑

4. For further discussion of the relationship between divine revelation and human research see section 2.3.C-D. ↑

5. Obviously the topic of Creation deserves much more discussion, which is provided in a myriad of Christian publications. ↑

6. John Frame, Perspectives on the Word of God (Presbyterian & Reformed, 1990), 30 ↑

7. Unfortunately, the term divine providence is used in a variety of ways in Christian theology. We use it to refer to God’s ordained natural laws that sustain Creation, and therefore, distinguish it from divine miraculous interventions. However, many use it to refer to miracles as well. See note below. ↑

8. This is how we would interpret the writer of Hebrews who says, “The Son is . . . sustaining all things by His powerful word” (1:3). That “word” was spoken at the time of Creation, and there is no reason to believe that the King is needing to constantly speak “His powerful word” in order to sustain Creation. The writer does not specify how the King is doing this, and for several reasons we suggest it is important to recognize it as occurring through the natural processes He implemented at the time of Creation. This is not only to recognize the validity of the natural laws, but to be able to clearly distinguish miracles from other events occurring in the Universe. For further discussion of common errors associated with divine providence see sections 10.1.C with endnotes; 10.2.A.1; 10.3.D.5; 10.12.B.4. ↑

9. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian (Simon and Schuster, 1957), 50-51. ↑

10. Excerpt from section 4.13.A.2. ↑

11. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, (Eerdmans, 1996), 105. ↑

12. Quoted from section 4.13.A.1. ↑

13. Excerpt from section 4.13.A. ↑

14. For a much more detailed discussion of the responses of regenerated and unregenerated humanity to the revelation of Creation see sections 4.13.A and 4.15.B. ↑

15. Mark Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1994), 50 ↑

16. As John Gerstner notes:

    [Jonathan] Edwards argued, some of the non-elect have no awakenings or encounters with God until they go to hell: “There are some persons that are born miserable and live in darkness and die in darkness and when they are dead go into eternal darkness.” (The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 3 vols. [Berea, 1991], II.187. ↑

17. For further discussion of how grace fundamentally makes God’s plan of salvation unjust in many ways from a human perspective, see section 6.2.C.3. ↑

18. Bruce Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. (Zondervan, 1987, 1990, 1994), 61. ↑

19. John Calvin should probably be added to the list of theologians who viewed historical acts as a universal revelation of God. Dowey describes section I.v.7 of the Institutes as Calvin’s “analysis of the knowledge of God gained from human history.” (The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology [New York, NY: Columbia, 1952], 78). However, Calvin speaks more specifically of God’s current blessings of the righteous and punishments of the wicked. Still, he viewed such acts as a revelation of God that is “just as clear” as that provided by God’s creation and preservation of the universe (See Institutes of the Christian Religion in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, CD-ROM, [Ages Software, 1998], I.v.7).

    Contrary to Calvin, we do not think that the personal experiences of good and bad people are supernatural, consistent, or clear enough to be considered in the same category of divine revelation as Creation. And while we may not completely agree with Dowey’s interpretation of Calvin’s view, his critique of it applies to many who view human history as a universal revelation of God:

    In summary and criticism, we must note that the nonambiguity of . . . the exigencies of history as read by Calvin ostensibly from experience “common both to aliens and those of his family” appears to bear the imprint of Calvin’s own faith rather than an independent natural theology. His arguments are too easy, not considerate enough of the problems of the searching mind. The arguments that he introduces so quickly . . . may not be so compelling as Calvin thinks. At the very least Calvin’s derivation of God’s justice and mercy from history seems not so much rational argument as an ex post facto delineation derived from his own believing interpretation of history. It can more easily be understood and justified in terms of Calvin’s biblically derived doctrine of providence than an unbiased reading from nature. (81). ↑

20. Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Baker, 1999), 670. ↑

21. Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume 1 (Bethany House, 2002), 67. ↑

22. Donald Bloesch, A Theology of Word & Spirit (InterVarsity, 1992), 174. ↑

23. Bruce Demarest, General Revelation: Historical Views and Contemporary Issues (Zondervan, 1982], 241-2. ↑

24. Erickson, 179. ↑

25. The need for recognition in a proper understanding of divine revelation is discussed in section 7.1.B.3. ↑

26. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (EBC), Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. CD-ROM (Zondervan, n.d.), loc. cit. ↑

27. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Eerdmans, 1988), 338. ↑

28. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Eerdmans, 1980, reprint, 1999), 288. ↑

29. Frame, 142. ↑

30. John Baillie, The Idea of Revelation in Recent Thought (Columbia University Press, 1956), 72. ↑

31. Robert L. Thomas, “General Revelation and Biblical Hermeneutics,” The Master Seminary Journal 9:6 (Spring 1998). ↑

32. For further discussion on the development of the human conscience see section 2.5.C. ↑

33. Excerpt from section 2.5.C. ↑

34. While the doctrine of the sensus divinitatis is most popularly attached to Calvin, it should be noted that it had some historic element in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (ca. 155-220) and Augustine (354-430). See Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (Harper & Row, 1979), 7-8, 23. ↑

35. For further discussion regarding Reformed epistemology see chapter 2.8. ↑

36. John Calvin, Institutes, I.3.3. See also D. G. Dunbar, “Sensus Divinitatis,” EDT, 1001. ↑

37. Dowey, 50, 56. ↑

38. Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Zondervan, 2010), Kindle Locations 3452-3453. ↑

39. Ibid., 50, 51. ↑

40. On the issue of defining Calvin’s sensus divinitatis, William Craig and J. P. Moreland write:

    It is worth noting that [Alvin] Plantinga seriously misinterprets Calvin on this score. When the French Reformer spoke of an innate sense of divinity, he meant an awareness of God, just as we speak of a sense of fear, or a sense of foreboding, or a sense of being watched. But Plantinga takes him to mean a cognitive faculty akin to our sense of sight, or sense of hearing, or sense of touch. Nothing in Calvin supports the idea that we have a special inborn cognitive mechanism that produces belief in God. (Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview [Inter Varsity, 2002], 168).

    Thus far, then, we have encountered several different ways of describing the sensus divinitatis: 1) Calvin’s own clearest description was that it was a universal “conviction that there is some God [which] is naturally inborn in all.” This seems to imply that it requires no reasoning either from conscience or Creation. 2) Reformed epistemologists like Plantinga refer to it as a human faculty, 3) Craig and Moreland as merely a human feeling and evidently without answering how that feeling occurs, and 4) Dowey calls it an “element” of human “subjective revelation” distinguished from the conscience. For our part, we will stick with our statement here that, “Calvin’s meaning is clear enough to understand that he is suggesting another means by which humanity receives a direct revelation of God apart from logical reasoning from Creation or moral reasoning from conscience.” ↑

41. Peter Jensen, The Revelation of God (InterVarsity, 2002), 112. ↑

42. Craig and Moreland, 168. ↑

43. Demarest, “Revelation, General” EDT, 945. See also Demarest, General Revelation, 228-33. ↑

44. Matthew Fox, The Coming of the Cosmic Christ, quoted by Ray Yungen in A Time of Departing, 10. ↑

45. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (Eerdmans, 1995), 83. ↑

46. Ibid. ↑

47. Finally, it is interesting to note that not even John Calvin interpreted John 1:9 in the way that Dr. Demarest and neo-Reformed epistemologists typically do. While it might have provided a wonderful proof text for his idea of a sensus divinitatis, the great Bible interpreter wrote in his commentary:

    I am . . . inclined to adopt the . . . meaning, which is, that from this light the rays are diffused over all mankind, as I have already said. For we know that men have this peculiar excellence which raises them above other animals, that they are endued with reason and intelligence, and that they carry the distinction between right and wrong engraven on their conscience. There is no man, therefore, whom some perception of the eternal light does not reach. (John Calvin, Calvin’s Bible Commentaries in The Comprehensive John Calvin Collection, CD-ROM, [Ages Software, 1998], loc. cit.

    As demonstrated above, we would not agree with Calvin that the “light” John is speaking of is the human conscience or reason, or that it is universally provided. Still, neo-Reformed epistemologists should consider the fact that the founder of the foundation of their philosophical views did not even see it here. ↑

48. For example, John Stott writes concerning the Apostle John’s statement, “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him” (1 John 3:9):

    If the heretics were teaching that the divine principle is already resident by nature either in all people or in ‘good souls’ (Valentinus), John’s position is rather that it is implanted into some by grace and that those who receive it are thereby ‘born of God’. (The Letters of John TNTC, rev. ed., [Eerdmans, 1988], 133). ↑

49. Excerpt from chapter 2.8. ↑

50. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Edward N. Gross ed., abridged version, (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterians & Reformed Publishing, 1992), 426, 428. See also, D. M. Lloyd-Jones, God the Holy Spirit (Crossway, 1997), 27. ↑

51. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Banner of Truth Trust, 1958, repr. 1998), 436. ↑

52. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) represents the form of dîn that means “strife, contend” as using different Hebrew letters than the one being used in the text here. (Gleason Archer, R. Laird Harris, Bruce K. Waltke eds. 2 Vols. [Moody, 1980], I:188.) ↑

53. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (K&D), Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Findex.com, 2000), loc. cit. ↑

54. See Lloyd-Jones, 43-52. Although he specifies that, “The Holy Spirit always works through the word of God . . . In order to do His work, the Spirit uses the word of God.” (51). If exposure to the word of God is necessary for the convicting work of the Spirit, then it would seem unlikely that it can have the universal effect that Lloyd-Jones seems to be suggesting.

    Likewise, Leon Morris comments:

    This is the one place in Scripture where the Spirit is spoken of as performing a work in “the world.” The many other references speak of what he will do in believers. . . . Apart from the Holy Spirit people do not really know the truth about sin or righteousness or judgment. (619-20.)

    Again, while suggesting a universal operation of the Spirit, he would seem to deny it later, as it is admitted by all that not every human being knows “the truth about sin or righteousness or judgment.” ↑

55. Excerpt from section 4.16.A ↑

56. We will note here that our interpretation is not intended to deny the fact that the Holy Spirit ministers and even convicts people who do not get saved (cf. Heb 6:4-6; Matt 13:19-23). Accordingly, John Calvin commented on John 16:8:

    Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates. For there are two ways in which the Spirit convinces men by the preaching of the Gospel. Some are moved in good earnest, so as to bow down willingly, and to assent willingly to the judgment by which they are condemned. Others, though they are convinced of guilt and cannot escape, yet do not sincerely yield, or submit themselves to the authority and jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit, but, on the contrary, being subdued they groan inwardly, and, being overwhelmed with confusion, still do not cease to cherish obstinacy within their hearts. (Commentaries, loc. cit.) ↑

57. Ibid. ↑

58. Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts (Hendrickson, 1998), 87-88. ↑

59. For further discussion of inclusivism and pluralism see section 6.12.A-B. ↑

60. Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Intervarsity, 1996), 186-8. ↑

61. Norman Gulley, Systematic Theology: Prolegomena (Andrews University, 2003), 224-5. ↑

62. The Documents of Vatican II, sections 2.16; 4.1.22; 13.1.715.1.2. ↑

63. For further discussion regarding the effect of universal revelation on humans see section 2.12.B. ↑

64. For an introduction of saving faith as opposed to several other types of faith, see section 6.1.E. ↑

65. While Dr. Packer includes the moral law in conscience in universal revelation, we argue otherwise in section 7.4.C.3 above. ↑

66. J. I. Packer, “Revelation” in the New Bible Dictionary, J. I. Packer, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, D. J. Wiseman, eds., (Inter-Varsity, 1996), 1015. ↑

67. Grudem, 123. ↑

68. Demarest, General Revelation, 249. ↑

69. For further discussion about the “insanity of humanity” regarding Creation see section 4.13.A. ↑

70. Demarest, General Revelation, 242. Still, it would seem he goes too far in suggesting that “general revelation is the necessary prerequisite to special revelation” (Ibid., 250). None of his examples of this relationship are sufficient, including the idea that the conscience is what convicts of sin for salvation. Rather, Christ said that the personal revelation, and the kind of conviction that leads to real repentance, will be provided by the Holy Spirit (cf. John 16:8-10). ↑

71. For further discussion of the universal revelation received through Creation as described in Romans 1:18-23 see section 4.13.A. ↑

72. Demarest, General Revelation, 243. While we would generally agree with Demarest here, as discussed above, we would not agree that a revelatory activity of the Holy Spirit based on John 1:9 is included in such “general revelation.” ↑

73. The 100 Most Important Events in Christian History, Kenneth A. Curtis, J. Stephen Lang and Randy Petersen (Baker, 1998), 169. ↑

74. See the preface of Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Day Star Publications, 1998). ↑

75. Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (InterVarsity, 1994), 42. ↑

76. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1, Prolegomena to Theology, (Baker, 1987), 234. ↑

77. Pensées, no. 377, online at http://www.ccel.org/p/pascal/pensees/ pensees.htm. ↑

78. Calvin, Institutes, I:5.14, II:2.18. ↑