Free Reformed Church of Calgary discussion
Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2
>
Chapter 2: The Knowledge of God (weeks 3-5)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
"First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse. Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own" (Belgic Confession, Article 2).
In the first case, God makes Himself known through the created order (general revelation); in the later, God reveals Himself through the Holy Scriptures (special revelation). Some have referred to these two means as “natural” and “supernatural” revelation. However, these terms are a bit misleading and probably best avoided altogether--as God’s work of creating, sustaining, and governing the so-called “natural” realm is no less supernatural than His other works. All revelation (even that in nature) is supernatural as God is always working to uphold all things in the created order (Jn. 5:17; Col. 1:16-17). Therefore, it is probably best to use the terms “general” and “special” revelation instead (see Vol. 1, p. 301).
However, general revelation is by itself insufficient for salvation--for it cannot supply us with the knowledge of Christ, grace, and forgiveness. At most, it supplies us with the knowledge of God’s existence, goodness, and justice. However, it does not impart the knowledge of Christ who is the only Saviour (Mt. 11:27; Jn. 14:6; 17:3; Acts 4:12). Furthermore, although some divine truths are knowable from general revelation, humans have been altogether darkened by sin, requiring illumination from God’s Spirit, thus necessitating special revelation to understand grace (Rom. 1:18-20; Jn. 6:19-20).
To this point, Bavinck reaffirms in this chapter that God reveals Himself in His creation and works: "what is needed on the human side is a mind that has been sanctified and eyes that have been opened in order to be able to see God" (p. 74). It is only by the Holy Scriptures (special revelation) that we can properly interpret the revelation of God in creation: "we cannot interpret the innate and acquired knowledge of God as the knowledge we derive from creation apart from special revelation… We are all indebted to God's special revelation in his Word for the knowledge of God we have derived from nature. If we had not heard God speaking to us in the works of grace… we would all be like pagans, for whom nature speaks in a cacophony of confusing tongues" (p. 75). In other words, without the Scriptures, general revelation does not make sense. Special revelation is primarily special not because it appeals to a greater intellect or higher reason, but rather because it exceeds the base thoughts of sinful men who cannot appreciate the grand testimony of general revelation (see, for example, Jn. 12:27-29).
"To the devout everything in nature speaks of God. The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. God’s voice is in the great waters. That voice breaks the cedars; it rumbles in the thunder and howls in the hurricane. The light is his garment, the heavens his curtain, the clouds his chariot. His breath creates and renews the earth. He both rains and causes his sun to shine upon the just and the unjust. Herbs and grass, rain and drought, fruitful and barren years, indeed, all things come not by chance but by his fatherly hand" (Vol. 1, p. 308).
Therefore, when it comes to the knowledge of God, He has given us the Scriptures and furnished us with His Holy Spirit to help us correctly interpret the world around us, which all point back to Him.
6. The Fool Says in His Heart "There is No God": The Bible does not attempt to prove God's existence. It presumes that all mankind knows God. Anyone denying God's existence is a fool (Ps. 14:1; 53:1) and lower than a beast who knows his Maker (Isa. 1:3).
7. Acquired Knowledge of God: As summarized by point #4 (above), the "implanted knowledge of God" isn't actually a knowledge that we possess at the moment of birth. It refers merely to the capacity and inclination to know God. It speaks of a knowledge of God that comes to humans spontaneously without coercion, argumentation, effort, or force; and it arises from external revelation.
Just like the "implanted knowledge of God", the "acquired knowledge of God" also arises from the same external revelation. In contrast, however, acquired knowledge of God develops from reasoning and argumentation. Implanted knowledge is basic, universal, and cannot be eradicated--whereas acquired knowledge is complex, detailed, but can also sometimes be subject to doubts and criticism. Implanted knowledge and acquired knowledge are complementary. Implanted knowledge is completed by acquired knowledge. The desire for acquired knowledge leads us to the study of apologetics.
8. Apologetics - Presuppositionalism vs. Evidentialism: The term apologetics means "speaking in defense" and aims to provide a rational basis for the Christian faith. I only have a superficial knowledge of apologetics, but as I understand it, Reformed theology typically classifies apologetic methods into presuppositionalism and evidentialism (also known as classical apologetics). I'll try to define these two terms (simplistically): presuppositionalism is a method that starts from the position that the Bible and Christianity are true, then moves on to show how other world views are inconsistent, and that only the Christian position can be internally consistent; evidentialism starts from a neutral position and tries to employ external evidences to prove that the Christian world view is the most sensible position.
Side Note: The terms presuppositionalism and evidentialism were developed after Bavinck. In particular, the presuppositional method was really developed and articulated in the mid-1900s after Bavinck's death. So, it is not surprising that Bavinck did not employ these terms in this chapter. Nonetheless, it appears to me that Bavinck favoured the presuppositional approach (see point #9 below).
9. "Proofs" for God: Classically, there have been six (evidentialist) "proofs" for God. First, the cosmological argument principally argues that everything has a cause-effect relationship. It assumes that an infinite chain is impossible, so there must have been a First Cause that initiated everything, namely God Himself. Second, the teleological argument suggests that the order in creation indicates a purposeful, intelligent, conscious Creator. Third, the ontological argument looks at the rational nature of humans and infers the existence of God from thought (i.e., it argues that the existence of the idea of God implies the existence of God). Fourth, the moral argument assumes that the presence of morality in the human realm is a product of a supreme moral being. Fifth, the argument from universal consent essentially acknowledges that religion is common to all mankind and this universal "seed of religion" (cf. John Calvin in point #4 above) is the result of the divine image placed in every man. Lastly, the historical-theological argument proposes that all of history has been directed towards a purposeful goal as guided by the firm hand of God.
Bavinck notes that none of these "proofs" are really "proofs" in the true sense of the word (p. 89-90). God is the origin and the ground for our knowledge in Him; therefore only God is able to provide definitive proof of Himself. True knowledge of God cannot be reduced down to a few arguments. "There is not a single thing whose existence is certain to us only on the basis of proofs… The proofs, as proofs, are not the grounds but rather than products of faith" (p. 90). Everything begins with faith and from there we can appreciate the six arguments above correctly. "… no one should ever think that these six proofs are the sole, isolated testimonies God sends us. On the contrary: to the believer all things speak of God; the whole universe is the mirror of his perfections. There is not an atom of the universe in which his everlasting power and deity are not clearly seen. Both from within and from without, God's witness speaks to us… All humans and peoples have heard something of the voice of the Lord" (p. 90).
Nonetheless, "Though weak as proofs, they are strong as testimonies… The proofs do not induce faith and the objections do not wreck it" (p. 91). For Christians, these proofs for God add to our acquired knowledge of Him (see point #7 above). They do not produce certainty, but they do provide clarity.
10. True Knowledge of God Produces Doxology: We should not be satisfied in accumulating mere knowledge, but rather we should be delighting in knowing God more (Jer. 9:23-24). This chapter concludes with a sweet doxology, attributing praise and glory to God as Creator and Preserver: "the testimonies that God sends to us in the world… are nothing other than a revelation… by means of which he makes himself known… [for he is] the sole, first, and absolute Cause of all creatures; who consciously and purposefully governs all things, and who above all reveals himself as the Holy One in the conscience of everyone who believes" (p. 91).
Indeed, as we learn more about the Almighty God, we should be growing in greater adoration for Him! :)
Just wondering if anyone shared my reaction to the dismissal of atheism as 'unnatural'. Without getting too deep into psychology, I do believe that it's pretty easy to delude ourselves and to suppress that 'natural and normal' acknowledgement of a personal God. In addition, I think we could be said, as a society, to be engaging in just such a dangerous and disorienting thought-experiment.
Mod
I see atheism as unnatural with respect to the initial pre-fall condition in which man was created (cf. Isa. 1:3; Jer. 8:7).
After the fall, however, mankind was severely corrupted. The new default position is that we are all born in opposition to God (cf. Eph. 2:1-3) and as relative atheists (Rom. 1:21). I agree that it is easy to become deluded and to suppress the knowledge of the one true God. I would even state it more extremely; I think that it is altogether impossible to acknowledge the true God as God without supernatural intervention because we're all inclined to reject Him: "The punishments of sin in this world are... blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections..." (Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 28).
So, in this sense, I suppose it can be said that it is now natural to be an atheist with respect to the post-fall condition of mankind. That being said, I agree that society (largely composed of unregenerate men and women) holds to a dangerous God-rejecting atheist worldview. Sad. :(
Mod
Mark: Although religion is common to all mankind (a product of the "seed of religion"), there remains nonetheless an inability to fully grasp revealed truth perfectly. Even in the objective study of natural phenomenon (e.g. biology, chemistry, etc.) there are still differences and debates on how to interpret the observed data.
While it may be possible that some universal truths ("eternal verities") are recognized "everywhere, always, and by all" (e.g., personal identity over time--that is--we believe that we are the same person now that we were a second ago), perhaps the same cannot be said of ethical truths. I suppose that it may be because ethical truths are grounded upon our idea of God; if our representation of God is distorted, so will our ethics, and for each person to varying degrees. Even among the pagans, there is some understanding (albeit imperfect) of truth (cf. Bavinck, vol. 1, pp. 318-319). The idea and content of who God is varies from person-to-person (even among enlightened Christians, but perhaps to a lesser degree). We have differing abilities, aptitudes, and dispositions in how we understand His revelation, thus rendering it impossible to have universal agreement "everywhere, always, and by all" with respect to ethical truths. I think this is what Bavinck may have been trying to express.
Mod
Mod
I would agree, however, that some ethical principles appear to be more rigorously held than others. It is more difficult to find a situation (though not impossible) of where murder is rationalized as acceptable (as per the example above) than to find an example where lying is believed to be acceptable (which I think is relatively easy to find).
Even among Christians, I don't think we find perfect agreement in "ethical truths" which are based on God's moral law. There are differences in understanding on how even the Ten Commandments should be understood, applied, etc. I think, more than anything else, it is a testimony to how fallen and wretched we are as humans. Ethical truths are absolute and don't change. But, our understanding of them is simply distorted (and each person to greater or lesser degrees).
Mod
Mod
Special revelation is needed to interpret general revelation. "The Reformers indeed assumed a revelation of God in nature. But the human mind was so darkened by sin that human beings could not rightly know and understand this revelation either. Needed, therefore, were two things: (1) that God again included in special revelation those truths which in themselves are knowable from nature; and (2) that human beings, in order to again perceive God in nature, first had to be illumined by the Spirit of God" (vol. 1, p. 304).
When referring to the "sufficiency of Scripture", we are speaking of its sufficiency for salvation. It contains all things necessary for God's glory, man's salvation, and faith and life (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6). "This attribute of Holy Scripture... does not mean that all that has been said or written by the prophets, by Christ, and the apostles is included in Scripture... Nor does this attribute imply that Scripture contains all the practices, ceremonies, rules, and regulations that the church needs for its organization but only that it completely contains 'the articles of faith', 'the matters necessary for salvation'" (vol. 1, p. 488).
Apologetics cannot produce faith, bring about conversion, or engender piety. "Apologetics cannot precede faith... [but the valid study of apologetics] teaches that Christians, even though they cannot confer faith on anyone, need not hide from their opponents in embarrassed silence. [When it is correctly applied], it will definitely succeed in impressing opponents with the truth of Christian revelation, refuting and silencing them. It cannot truly convert people to God. Not even the preaching of the gospel is able to do that; only God, by his Spirit, can accomplish that. [Misapplication of apologetics will] foster exaggerated expectations from its scientific labor as though by the intellect it could change the human heart and by reasoning engender piety" (vol. 1, p. 515).
Two quick house-keeping items:
First, as we move onto chapter 2, please keep in mind that discussions about previous topics (e.g., chapter 1) are still welcome. Just post your comment in the relevant thread. :)
Second, regardless of which book you're using (e.g., Berkhof's Systematic Theology, Bavinck's 4-vol. set, or Bavinck's 1-vol. abridged set), the topics that are covered should essentially be the same. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion regardless of which book you're using.
----------------------
This week, we're starting Chapter 2: The Knowledge of God. This chapter, in essence, is an introduction to apologetics (a topic that I don't know very much about). This is a big chapter with lots of heavy material. (Note: I'll be raising a few potential topics for discussion that cover the entirety of chapter 2, even though it will take us the next three weeks to finish this chapter completely). Here is a break-down of the main ideas I identified:
1. God is Knowable: As we already established in chapter 1, God is incomprehensible but nonetheless knowable. However, the extent of this knowledge is always limited and incomplete. As the Reformers phrased it, finitum non capax infiniti ("the finite cannot contain the infinite"). Although we cannot know God fully, we can still know God sufficiently.
2. Atheism is Unnatural: Our knowledge of God comes from His revelation through the created order and is clearly known to everyone: "that the world is the theater of God's self-revelation can hardly be denied" (p. 56). "Belief in a personal God, accordingly, is both natural and normal; it arises in human consciousness spontaneously and universally. But atheism, even the denial of the existence of a personal God, is the exception" (pp. 58-59). When we use the word "atheism", we may be referring to one of several things:
First, there may be an absolute, theoretical atheism whereby a person has no sense or idea of God. Bavinck, however, questions whether this type of atheism even exists; and if it does, he suggests that it must be exceedingly rare.
Second, there is a practical atheism where a person lives as though God was not present (Ps. 14:1; 53:2; Eph. 2:12). This person carries on his own ways, ignoring his duty towards God, his Maker. This can also be understood as a relative atheism. It is not a denial of any god, but a denial of a specific God. For example, in today's world, the term "atheist" is oftentimes used to describe those that acknowledge "matter" to be the supreme governing power in the universe (i.e., as materialists or naturalists). "Just as the Christian believer calls others to reverence his or her God, so [an atheist] demands a like piety toward his universe… At the very moment they deny the true God, they fashion for themselves a false god." (p. 58). Fundamentally, it is a disagreement about the nature of God rather than the existence of God. It requires exceptional effort to reject God. "No one disbelieves the existence of God except the person to whom God's existence is not convenient" (p. 59).
3. Innate Ideas - Rejected: If every human has a sense of God, how does this knowledge arise? This question has been the topic of immense interest for centuries (with various theories proposed from Greek, Roman, and modern philosophers). One popular theory is that of innate ideas. This theory suggests that the soul has the ability to produce ideas and knowledge of God from itself. According to this theory, universal truths (especially ideas concerning God) originate from within ourselves intuitively.
However, Christians have historically rejected the theory of innate ideas. In Volume 1: Prolegomena, Bavinck explains that divine revelation lies external to us. The Scriptures teach that human beings are never in themselves the epistemic sources of truth, as the “natural” man is given over to sin and radically depraved; accordingly, sinful corruption and error taint the intellect (Rom. 1:21-23; 8:7; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14; 2 Cor. 3:5; Eph. 4:23; Gal. 1:6-7; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 3:8), heart (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Eze. 36:26; Mk. 7:21), will (Ps. 14:3; Jn. 8:34; Rom. 7:14; 8:7; Eph. 2:3), and conscience (1 Cor. 8:7,10, 12; 10:28; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15), rendering our internal faculties altogether unreliable. Thus, we must look outside of ourselves to find truth. (For more, refer to Vol. 1, pp. 75 and 80).
The reason that Christians reject innate ideas is because if the knowledge of God can be derived internally, then we would be entirely self-sufficient. There would no longer be need for the inspired Word (p. 68). Humans would be able to retreat from both the world and the Word, relying entirely on self-reflection and introspection.
4. Innate Disposition - Accepted: If we reject the idea of "innate ideas", we're still left to wonder how every human comes to know God. Addressing this question, John Calvin proposed two related (likely synonymous) terms: the sensus divinitatis ("awareness of divinity") and the semen religionis ("the seed of religion"). By these terms, Calvin explains that every human is naturally born with an internal conviction (innate disposition) of the existence of God that can never be removed. In turn, when God's revelation is displayed through creation and His works, men come to acknowledge Him: "… people cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him… There is no spot in the universe in which you cannot discern at least some sparks of his glory" (The Institutes of the Christian Religion, I.v.1). This innate disposition is furnished by the external environment. The world around us brings us to the conscious knowledge of God by revealing His perfections (in notable contrast to the theory of innate ideas which teaches that knowledge exists prior to experience and observation).
Furthermore, Zacharias Ursinus (the principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism) taught that God (1) reveals himself to humans by notions impressed upon our minds (which I think is his way of describing the innate disposition), and (2) also by way of all created things which display God's presence. Similarly, Gisbertus Voetius (a Dutch theologian and delegate at the Synod of Dort) further elaborated on this innate disposition. He explained that it is "a capacity or power or aptitude belonging to the rational faculties [that enables men] to grasp the truth… apart from any effort, previous study, or reasoning" (p. 68). It is a natural inclination towards the truth of God in the same way that the eye is naturally inclined to look towards the light and all things visible. This innate disposition allows us to come to the knowledge of God by contemplating his revelation in nature and Scripture (Rom. 1:19; 1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 3:18).
We should not conclude that the presence of an innate disposition means that we are all born endowed with sufficient knowledge of God apart from external revelation. Rather, the teaching of innate disposition means that we have the capacity and inclination to know God. We gain this knowledge through normal development over the course of life. "It arises spontaneously and without coercion, without scientific argumentation and proof" (p. 71). It is important to also note that this innate disposition not only supplies the potential to know God, but it is a bound necessity that every human being in the course of his life must come to the realization of God's existence (p. 72; cf. Acts 14:17). "While the 'seed of religion' is indeed inherent to humans, it takes the whole field of human life to make it germinate and grow" (p. 73).
Side Note: Throughout the chapter (and particularly pp. 67-73), Bavinck uses several terms closely. It appears that "innate disposition", "awareness of divinity", "seed of religion", "innate knowledge" and "implanted knowledge of God" are used interchangeably. I think that (at least from the perspective of Bavinck) these terms are equivalent. (I just wanted to point this out because I don't want you to get confused like I did!)