Ch 4 Sect 4 “Natural” and “Supernatural”

Bavinck, here in this section wants to make further distinctions between “natural” and “supernatural” revelation. As he said before all revelation is supernatural because it is God, who is above and beyond nature, which reveals. Bavinck wants to distinguish between what is revealed in the created physical world, and what is revealed in reality that is beyond the physical that our senses perceive. The reality beyond our senses which is revealed to us, Bavinck wants to point out, that “supernatural” revelation could be called “theistic” revelation.

Often in the history of the Church the “supernatural” was associated only to miracles, or led down a road of dualism that pitted the natural and supernatural against each other. The Reformation revolted against this idea that nature was opposed to grace, but rather grace is opposed to sin. Its not that the material things and nature itself is deficient and that we hope for a lofty pie in the sky non-corporeal supernatural existence, but rather we live in world marred by sin, but one day in the consummation, will be re-created, nature will be restored to its original or even a better state such that God will look upon it and say “It is good”.

On the other side of the coin however, is a rationalism that values revelation only to the extent that it supports reason, or even perhaps revelation is not needed at all for the intellectually gifted philosophers. The rationalist would say that there is a world beyond the senses, beyond the physical, and it is accessible by reason alone. As Bavinck points out that these shifting and conflicting views indicate an unsatisfactory explanation. “Scripture resists all naturalistic and rationalistic explanations of its origins as revelation and attributes it solely to an extraordinary operative presence of God the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not give us data to interpret; it is itself the interpretation of reality, the shaper of a distinct world view, a worldview that is theistic and naturalistic” (p84) Here again we see Bavinck’s faithful commitment to Holy Scripture. Scripture is the sole authority, and it cannot be proven or interpreted by another means, other than scripture alone. Again this may seem circular, but only a word from God can authorize the word of God, and that is exactly what we have in the Bible. And this is the decisive point; Christianity is based upon a revelation that is received in faith. Not a revelation that can be authenticated, or proven by reason.

Only this Biblical, Christ centered, theistic world view, which embraces the natural and supernatural, and holds the authority of God and his Word, is fully compatible with reality of the world we live in. This worldview is compatible with miracles, nature marred by sin, morality, a purpose for man, and a hope for the new world to come.

Ch 4 Sect 3 Special, Scriptural Revelation

“Christianity, like all other religions, cannot survive on general revelation alone; a special divine disclosure or manifestation is needed.” All religions have a need for divine disclosure because of three things:

1) God is near

2) God reveals his will to man

3) Assistance of God to man in times of great distress.

And we see these 3 types of divine disclosure of God to man in the both Old and New Testament.

1) Jehovah dwelled in the tabernacle in the Old, and Jesus tabernacled with his people in the New.

2) Jehovah reveals the 10 commandments in the Old, Jesus preaches the Sermon on the Mount in the New.

3) Jehovah delivered his people from the bonds of slavery in Egypt, Jesus delivers us from the bonds of sin in the New.

Also these three basic types of divine disclosure satisfy the human quest for religion. (p75) In Biblical revelation these needs are met in different and distinct modes. The “angel of the Lord” who is very near and reveals his will to man and delivers his people from their enemies. Prophecy, “thus says the Lord”, is another mode of God communicating to his people. In miracles God reveal himself by his works. (p. 78) And finally the revelation of the person and work of Christ which Bavinck says “are the central revelation of God; all other revelation is group around this Center.”

All this revelation, from nature and from scripture, does not come to us in bits in pieces but rather is an organic whole, as Bavinck says, grand narrative from creation to consummation. As God’s image bears, man created in the God image, living in God’s world, the revelation that is outside of us is matched by the active revelation of God in our hearts. The purpose of special revelation is that man may know God and how to serve and honor God, all the while God himself is glorified. In this we see that revelation is subservient to redemption. The goal is redemption of man to the glory of God, the means, is revelation. Redemption is not possible apart from the saving work of the Holy Spirit working through the means of Special revelation.

Ch 4 Sec 2 General Revelation

Moving into the section on General Revelation, Bavinck is going to start being more precise and making distinctions between General and Special Revelation, or as some call it, Natural and Supernatural. The primary distinction is General Revelation is the revelation that God gives to man through nature, or creations, in the things that have been made. While Special Revelation is the revelation God gives to man in Holy Scripture. Bavinck says “Instructed by Holy Scripture, early Christian theology was led to make a distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” revelation. Bavinck points out in the history of the Church sometimes the two were at odds, and that supernatural revelation led to an odd mystic form of Christian rationalism.

The Reformation, however, did much to clear up the misunderstandings and affirm the distinctions. Calvin and the reformers believed “that the human mind was so darkened by sin that it could not rightly know and understand natural revelation, God therefore provided glasses of Scripture to aid our understanding of natural revelation.” (p69) Although not soon after the Reformation began, the philosophers came along and affirmed utterly irrational mean of affirming the reality of God.

Bavinck notes that the scriptures do not distinguish between “natural” and “supernatural” revelation, and that creation (natural revelation) is no less supernatural than Scripture. The providential work of God caring, sustaining and governing the world we live in is indeed the supernatural work of God himself. Although we maintain natural revelation is a supernatural work of God, there is a distinction between general and special, as Bavinck points out, in the Garden prior to sin, God spoke to Adam with a probationary command and promise, of which Adam would never had gained from nature itself. In other words Adam would not have known God’s command not to eat of the tree if God had not spoken it to him. Not eating of the tree, is a truth Adam would have never been able to logically deduce from nature alone.

Supernatural revelation is not an immediate revelation, meaning, revelation is mediated. God makes himself known by means, through words, visions, miracles etc… This is because man cannot know God as God, but only as a creature. Bavinck using WCF 7.1 says that “the distance between God and man is much too great for human beings to perceive God directly.” (p69) This is because man is finite, and is incapable of infinite knowledge. So any Revelation God gives to man is an act of grace, whereby God condescends, comes down to the creaturely level. As Bavinck says at the top of page 70, all revelation is anthropomorphic, a humanization of God.

Despite the entrance of sin in this world Bavinck teaches us, that God continues to reveal himself as he providentially cares for this world. And as Bavinck gives us a list of examples of how God reveals himself in this world through nature, and Bavinck prefers to use the terms general and special, since all of God’s revelation is indeed supernatural. And it is an agreed conviction that general revelation is insufficient for knowing God sufficiently for salvation. “General revelation fails to point us to sin, divine wrath, and grace…” (p70) And as general revelation is so pervasive, meaning God has revealed himself to all men; we can expect and do see that all religions contain certain elements of truth, although marred by sin. And not only does the false religions of the world benefit from general revelation, but I think we can say that even science benefits from general revelation. A science text book may tell you that it was Niels Bohr who discovered the Atomic Model, but the truth of the matter is that God revealed the atomic model to Bohr. Therefore the intellectual genius and discipline of the scientist is not the source of discovery, it is God who reveals truths about this world we live in. Also these truths are not separate isolated brute facts, but facts that are given in the context that “God Is”, “God is near”, and “God is not silent”. Every fact is not only a revelation from God, but a revelation of God. Then as Bavinck says, “Biblical faith is positioned to look out upon nature and history and discover the traces of the God who is known through Christ as Father. Christians equipped with the spectacles of Scripture see God in everything and everything in God.” (p73)

And as Bavinck closes this section he makes the following wonderful and incredible remark, “All revelation, general and special, finally finds its fulfillment and meaning in Christ.” Along with Bavinck we can affirm that any and all truths, either about nature, or the supernatural, have their ultimate meaning and realization in Christ.

Ch 4 Sect 1 The Idea of Revelation

Why is the concept of revelation necessary for religion? Because religion is concerned with the “super-natural”, the invisible and external power, and it is revelation that puts man in relation to these things. Bavinck holds that this is the distinction between religion and science. Science is concerned about things observable in this world, and religion is concerned with the invisible, things unseen. Science uses empirical methods of observation to gain truth, religion has revelation. Belief in a deity is the foundation of religion, and such a deity is made known to the mind of man by way of revelation.

“Religion is either an illusion, or it must be based on belief in the existence, revelation and knowability of God. For God to be God he cannot be accessible to ordinary human investigation.” (p63) For man to know God, God must come out of his hiddenness and reveal himself, and all religions maintain this fact. Although the revelation comes in difference forms, either supernaturally, through history or the heart, ect… It is God who reveals. Bavinck also observes that all religions are concerned with redemption and religions have a doctrine of salvation. “A belief in a savior is universal and can rest only on revelation.” (p63) Revelation is needed to know God and man’s condition before God.

Now what concerns Bavinck starting at the bottom of page 64 (subparagraph 83), is the relation between believing and knowing, theology and philosophy. If God cannot be known by way of general human knowledge, and the deepest questions, such as is there life after-death, remain unanswered, then faith in the God who reveals must be joined to knowledge. Then what is the priority and relation between revelation and reason. Is reason primary only to be supported by revelation?

Bavinck gives us a little history on the thought concerning revelation. Deism for instance believed ultimately reason could cast judgment on revelation, resulting in a cold impersonal rationalism which is spiritually unsatisfying. Others reduced revelation to “the spark of divinity” and moral perfection. Revelation has such a strong on impression or manifestation, which will lead humanity out of the moral decay. Schleiermacher working along these lines reduced revelation to a very intimate personal communication of Christ through the universe to the inmost aspect of our lives.

These lines of thought are all autonomous, meaning man defines what revelation is, how it is revealed, and what is revealed. Bavinck says on p67, “A true concept of revelation can only be derived from revelation itself. If no revelation ever took place, all revelation on the concept is futile. … And only revelation can give us the answer to revelation”. This may seem like a form of circular reasoning, but only a word from God can instruct us on the word of God. It is this way because God is the authority, and determines when how and what is to be revealed. So man has no place to dictate to God what and how revelation is given. A Christian man, however, can go about his scientific investigation, or even normal daily activities in a positive fashion, trusting and knowing God does reveal the truth that is valuable to the mind, body, and soul.

Ch 3 Sec 3 Religious Foundations

Does religion have a foundation, a fundamental principle? Bavinck here will make the case, that just as science, religion too has such a fundamental principle. This principal is the principal of the covenant. “The Bible provides no general idea of religion but covenantally presents God’s revelation as its objective side, and the fear of the Lord as the subjective side” (p.53) In the Old Testament the covenant gives us God’s Law, words, and precepts objectively, which must be internalized, obeyed, revered and believed. “Biblical religion is a matter of the heart. “(p53) In the New Testament God gives us his objective revelation as the Word became flesh in Jesus Christ, and the subjective side is a sincere loving and serving God in faith. As Bavinck says on page 54 “true religion claims the whole person, body, mind, soul, and heart.” Bavinck makes an important point about piety, being a state of being, a habit and disposition towards God that leads man to worship God and that faith hope and love are not separate virtues, but are incorporated into religion(or perhaps better “covenantal living”) itself and internalized. (p54-55)

Bavinck describes true active religion in terms of dependence and absolute trust with a sincere desire to live in obedience to God. The concept of dependence is good one because of our absolute dependence on our Creator, God. And this dependence does not make us a slave but rather as we recognize and acknowledge our dependence on God we are truly set free. Only as we by faith embrace God as our Father, do we receive grace, mercy, and love to live as free children of the King, not slaves to sin.

It is also true that all men are religious, Bavinck on page 55 quoting Calvin, “the seed of religion has been implanted in all humanity”. But fallen humanity has corrupted true religion, which is seen in the many different religions of history. While all religions do have formal similarities, they all have conflicting claims. So what is the place of religion, or what is its essence, Bavinck examines on p57. Is it knowledge, morality of feeling? The Gnostics would say knowledge The Gnostic would say some screwball thing like “only as we contemplate the universe and gain knowledge is redemption of the inner man possible.” I love the quote on p57 from Hegel, primarily because it is absolutely in coherent, and Hegel is thought of, in the secular academic world of philosophy, as a giant. Hegel says, “Man only knows of God insofar as God has knowledge of himself in man; this knowledge is the self-consciousness of God but also a knowledge of the same by man, and this knowledge of God by man is the knowledge of man by God. The mind of man in coming to know God, is just the mind of God itself.” What? Is that even intelligible? The secular philosopher thinks this is profound, but it is absolutely complete nonsense, and has no meaning, or better can mean anything you want it to mean about God and man, and that is why secular philosophy embraces nonsense like this. My apologizes for the rant. So, then is religion morality, ethical in a nature. As Christians, living obediently is signification, but we must we careful to distinguish faith from works. Or is religion essentially feeling. As state previously by Bavinck the Christian faith is one of utter and complete dependence on God, but Christianity is not reduced tot this feeling of dependence alone. A personal relationship to God does not leave people cold or indifferent (p58). But when feeling is detached from faith, a faith that receives objective truth (what is good and evil), then feeling has no quality or meaning.

All this brings us to the important point for Bavinck that the true Christian religion embraces the whole man in relation to God, knowledge, willing to serve, and feeling. There is an order and priority here. Knowledge is first and primary. Without knowing who God is, what God has done, what God demands, and what God promises, there is no objective morality nor is there any authentic feelings of love, assurance, gratitude, and dependence. And it is only as God reveals his truth, and regenerates man by his Spirit, can man please God (morality) with pleasure (feeling).

So back to the original question, is there a foundation or principle for religion? Yes, the principle is revelation and redemption. Revelation comes from outside of man, as an external source from God to man, and redemption that renews man from within. The subjective response to the God and his revelation, which the bible calls faith, along with a desire to live accordingly to God’s word, are the foundations and principles for true Christian religion. (p56)

Ch 3 Sect 2 Realism and Universals (Logos)

Realism is the direction of philosophy that wants to maintain that things in the world are knowable as they are, not as they appear to be, or as they are in mans thought, but rather as they really are and man can know things in the world.

To avoid rationalism which says, we only know things as we conceptualize them in our mind. And avoiding empiricisms which states, the intellect is passive and we only gain knowledge through sensation. And avoiding idealism which says, we only know things as they appear, not as they really are. The realism Bavinck chooses is such that we live in Gods world and as man we have a God given active intellect to perceive and make sense of objects in the world as they really are. Like the empiricist Bavinck the Realist will say, that knowledge is gained through the senses. The difference is, that for Bavinck the Realist, the intellect is active, the intellect actively process particular sense experiences and abstracts general or universal principles. For Bavinck, when man observes, say for instance, a tree, the mind unlike the empiricist is not passive, perceiving only a distinct objects such as bark, branches, and leaves, but rather is active and as it perceives the bark, branches and leaves, can abstract from the sensation the universal idea of treeness.

So the question is, on what grounds does Bavinck formulate this active intellect notion? Well following Thomas who followed Aristotle on this, Bavinck wants to hold that things out in the word such as a tree, participates or has within itself, the essence of treeness or the universal idea of treeness. Then the active intellect, as man observes the particular tree, abstract the universal idea of treeness, which is a law of thought within man given by God. This principle of the active intellect, says Bavinck, is founded upon the Logos of scripture. Taking John 1:3, Bavinck explains that the Logos which shines light into this world and also light in men, is the light of reason. “The Logos, who shines in the world, must also let his light shine in our consciousness. That is the light of reason, the intellect, which itself originating in the Logos, discovers and recognizes the Logos in things. This is the foundation of knowledge, which can only be a gift of God’s mind.” (p.52)

No here I pose a criticism. I think Bavinck is not fully consistent in his realism, and not precise with his use of John 1. Bavinck previously said “The foundations of theology are thus Trinitarian: The Father, through the Son as Logos, imparts himself to creatures in the Spirit.” But now in this section he states “The proper starting point for any theory of knowledge is the universal and natural certainty we find spontaneously in our ordinary experience” and in the next paragraph he says “Sense perception is the starting point of all human knowledge”. These statements are obviously inconsistent, one cannot maintain a Revelational Epistemology on the one hand, and that sense perception as the starting point of all human knowledge on the other. If God and His revelation (both special and general) is the source of all knowledge, how could Bavinck state the sense perception is the starting point?

Bavinck attempts to bring these contradictory ideas together through the use of John 1 and the active intellect. On p52 as noted above Bavinck says that the Logos is the light of reason, this for Bavinck is the grounds for his active intellect which is then the foundation for knowledge. John 1:1-5, 9-11 says as follows:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. . . . 9The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. (John 1:1-5, 9 ESV)

The Light here is not the general capacity to reason, or to have basic common sense principles, but rather the knowledge of God through the activity of the Logos himself. When John tells us in verse 4 that the darkness has not overcome the light, he does not mean that darkness has not overcome our active intellect and ability to make common sense judgments. John is teaching us that Christ, who is the true light, enlightens everyone. The enlightenment is the knowledge of God himself, which everyone has, and that the darkness has not overcome. By taking this approach to John 1 along with Romans 1:18 (All men know God) it is clear that scripture is teaching us that there is a certain implanted knowledge all men have, and that is the Light of the World, God himself. There is no hint here that people simply have the capacity for knowing God, or can be reasoned with to know God. All men by virtue of being created in God’s image know God, and the darkness has not overcome it. Now it is only through the regenerating work of the Spirit that will allow man through Spirit wrought faith to embrace this knowledge and worship God. But man has no excuse, God has made himself known to all people.

Ch 3 Sect 1 Science and Thought (Principia)

After a brief tour through the history of Dogma, Bavinck in chapter 3 is now returns to the Foundations of Dogmatic Theology . Again, Bavinck wants to treat theology as a science, not as a speculative philosophy. As a science, theology has a certain subject, method, and object. The subject is God, as Bavinck says “Theology is a science about God, not religion or faith. The aim of theology is nothing other than that the rational creature know God, and, knowing him, glorify him.”The method as Bavinck briefly explained is the synthetic-genetic method (see Ch1 Sect 4 Faith and Method)

Now the object of study, the medium through which the theologian can gain information, and knowledge about the subject, is revelation. The object, “is revelation that which proceeds from faith, and revelation will articulate its own first or foundational principles ( principia )”. (p49) God by way of revelation makes himself known as the primary and efficient cause of all things. Here Bavinck breaks down three “principia”. This “principia”, can be broken down into three fundamental principles.

Principia Essendi – God is the essential principal for knowledge.

Principium Cognoscendi Externum – Scripture is the external cognitive foundation.

Principium Cognoscendi Internum – The Holy Spirit is the internal principal foundation.

God as the essential principal of knowledge gives us his word in the Bible which is outside of us, an external knowledge, that can only be internalized and understood by man through the internal work of the Holy Spirit illuminating the truths of scripture. Bavinck sums it up beautifully on page 59, “The foundations of theology are thus Trinitarian: The Father, through the Son as Logos, imparts himself to creatures in the Spirit.” Amazing Trinitarian Theology at work!

Here Bavinck is emphasizing and advocating a full fledge, no holds barred, Revelational Epistemology. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge. How man can know things, what are the limits of knowledge, and how man can be certain that what he knows is true. So Bavinck is maintaining that everything man knows, and everything that man can know, is only knowable as God reveals such knowledge to man. And as Bavinck is advocating this Revelational Epistemology, he also wants to maintain that the things God reveals to us are real. Simply stated, Bavinck is saying, God makes known to man, by way of revelation, things in this world such as, plants, dogs, trees, love, goodness, justice, hate etc…, and these things are real, they truly exist.

This principle of God revealing things in this world to man also gives us a fully consistent Christian metaphysic. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with reality. Metaphysics poses questions such as, what is reality, what kinds of things exist, is there a God, what is love. Also, as it turns out, Metaphysics and Epistemology are interdependent. You can’t know things, having a theory of knowledge apart from a theory of reality. For instance if the atheist has an epistemology that says we know and learn things by observation, but has a view of reality that says we live in chance universe, there is then a real inconsistency between his metaphysical and epistemological position.

Now before Bavinck puts his Revelational Epistemology in philosophical terms, , he gives a us a very quick run down of two schools of thought concerning epistemology, rationalism, and empiricism.

Rationalism basically states knowledge consists of what’s in the mind, and therefore reality is not what’s out in the world; reality is what my thoughts of the world are. Rationalism holds that man has certain innate ideas and these ideas form the foundation of reality. So reality is how my mind interprets the world and understands it in my own thought.

Empiricism wants to maintain the mind is not active in the knowing process at all. All that is known is just a collection of experiences and sensations. Man can only acquire knowledge through the faculty of perception. Empiricism has no way of accounting for things like love, hate, law etc …

So Bavinck will want to declare pox on both these houses and express how we can know things in the world are real and really exist. He will use a form of common sense realism to accomplish this task.