Natural Revelation

Bruce Demerest defines general revelation as follows:

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. General, or natural, revelation may be divided into two categories: (1) internal, the innate sense of deity and conscience, and (2) external, nature and providential history.[1]

There are four major views on general revelation that dominate historical theology.

1) General revelation does not exist.

In his spirited denunciation of natural theology Karl Barth made strong statements against not only natural theology but also against natural revelation. For Barth, revelation, by its very nature, has a saving quality. Therefore it is impossible to conceive of a kind of revelation that can not save.
Moreover, how can Brunner maintain that a real knowledge of the true God, however imperfect it may be (and what knowledge of God is not imperfect?) does not bring salvation? And if we really do know the true God from his creation without Christ and without the Holy Spirit–if this is so, how can it be said that…in matters of the proclamation of the Church Scripture is the only norm, and that man can do nothing towards his salvation?[2]

2) The Dutch Reformed school of Kuyper, Berkouwer, Van Til, and others holds that there is a natural revelation that points to God, but only in the hearts of the redeemed.[3]

3) On the opposite end of the spectrum from Barth are those who hold that natural revelation is sufficient apart from special revelation to effect salvation and to live as we ought (Schleiermacher, Otto, Tillich, Rahner, Henry P. Van Dusen, Harold DeWolf).[4]

4) Thomas Aquinas held that while salvation cannot be realized by means of natural revelation alone, a great amount of true knowledge of God can be gained from general revelation.[5]

Generally speaking evangelicalism has embraced the fourth view of general revelation; however there seems to always be a pull in the hearts of many toward the third view. I believe this is a harmful trend in that the effort to set forth natural revelation as sufficient for salvation or sanctification undermines the doctrines of the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture.

The Necessity of Scripture:

Most of the historical discussion regarding general revelation has focused on the role of general revelation in natural theology. Theologians have sought to answer questions regarding how much (and what kind of) knowledge of God can be obtained from general revelation alone, apart from special revelation.
This was a major concern for Karl Barth. Barth saw natural theology as the process that led to Nazism[6] and from that standpoint argued vigorously against Emil Brunner against acceptance of natural theology.

The basis for the formulation of the doctrine of general revelation as it has been traditionally defined by most evangelicals has been the tension in Scripture between the perspicuity of natural revelation on the one hand and the inadequacy of natural revelation to save on the other. Regarding the clarity of natural revelation Scripture makes some strong statements. According to the psalmist the creation constantly shouts, declares, displays, and pours forth truth about God in a way that is heard by all.

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.[7]

God’s self-disclosure to all mankind “is plain to them,” and the noetic effect of sin not withstanding, God’s invisible qualities “have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”[8] That general revelation is clear is taught with great clarity in special revelation.

On the other side of the tension, however, is the doctrine of the necessity of Scripture. As clear as natural revelation is, it is not sufficient for salvation or Christian living or knowing God’s will. Without the propositional truth of the Gospel that comes from special revelation no one can be saved.

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?[9]

Scripture is also necessary for the very daily sustenance of the believer. It functions for us spiritually like food and drink function for the physical body.[10] And while conscience can offer some approximation of God’s will, apart from the propositional statements of the Bible there can be no certain understanding of God’s will. In the words of Wayne Grudem:
If there were no written Word of God, we could not gain certainty about God’s will through other means such as conscience, advice from others, an internal witness of the Holy Spirit, changed circumstances, and the use of sanctified reasoning and common sense.[11]

It is through the Scriptures that a man can keep his way pure, avoid sin, walk in freedom, be comforted in suffering, recover from apostasy, survive affliction, be preserved in life, and gain greater insight than his teachers.[12]

In synthesizing these two emphases, then, theologians have concluded that natural revelation is adequate to condemn but not adequate to save. The emphasis in Romans about the clarity of general revelation focuses on condemnation; not salvation.[13] David Diehi summarizes the evangelical view of General Revelation in five propositions.

1. General revelation is a revelation of God through his works of creation and providence in a natural, continuous, universal, indirect and nonpropositional mode.
2. General revelation gives a knowledge of God’s general character and will.
3. The knowledge of God by general revelation has been darkened or distorted by sin.
4. In spite of sin, general revelation is clear and objective and is therefore the basis for universal human guilt and a point of contact for the gospel.
5. Scripture and the grace of the Holy Spirit are needed to enable us to understand properly the message of general revelation.[14]

The doctrine of the necessity of special revelation remains an important doctrine in our day because there is an ever-present temptation to imagine that salvation can be obtained apart from the Gospel. In 1978 McCall’s magazine quoted Billy Graham as having said, “I used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that.”[15] Graham reaffirmed that view in an interview with Dr. Robert Schuller on May 31, 1997 when Billy Graham stated that the body of Christ, in the end, would be made up, from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ. And I don’t think that we are going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that – the Apostle James in the first Council in Jerusalem – when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for his name. And that is what he is doing today. He is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.[16]

Robert Schuller then asked for clarification:

What, what I hear you saying, that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they have been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?[17]

Graham responded in decided tones: “Yes it is.” [18]

Schuller excitedly offered his agreement with Graham pointing out that “there is a wideness in God’s mercy.”[19] That phrase is taken from the title of Clark Pinnock’s book, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, in which Pinnock argues that faith saves regardless of the content of what is believed.

According to the Bible, people are saved by faith, not by the content of their theology … The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved.[20]

This view has been taught in recent times by some important theologians, including A. H. Strong who said, “Since Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God, he may be received even by those who have not heard of his manifestation in the flesh.”[21]

The fact that a man like Billy Graham, who is widely regarded as the greatest evangelist of our time, has compromised on this point demonstrates the need for theologians to remind the Church of the doctrine of the necessity of Scripture. If it is possible for people to be saved apart from hearing or reading the Gospel the force of Paul’s argument in Romans 10 for the urgency of missions is lost. John Sanders has attempted to address that criticism by marshaling a list of other valid motivations for missions,[22] but regardless of what other valid motives may exist, the fact remains that the motive we are given in Romans 10 is the impossibility of salvation for those who do not hear the Gospel.

The Sufficiency of Scripture:

At least as important in our day as the necessity of Scripture is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. While evangelicals have fought valiantly for other perfections of Scripture, in our day there is a reluctance on the part of many to argue for the sufficiency of Scripture. The editors of the book Totally Sufficient, note that,

As we were doing research for this chapter, we observed an interesting phenomenon. When the church was dealing with the issues of inerrancy and authority, a number of Christian writers who took an integrationist stance wrote convincingly that the Scriptures take precedence over all scientific data. There are dozens of volumes available on the inerrancy debate. But ever since the church’s focus shifted from inerrancy to sufficiency, very little has been written in support of Scripture’s preeminence.[23]

Key areas where this doctrine is under siege are in regard to evolution and psychology. It is frequently asserted that we need the theories of evolutionists and naturalistic scientists in order to understand Genesis; and we need the theories of Freud and Rogers to be sanctified in areas the world deems “psychological.”

Science

It is increasingly common for those who write on the topic of natural revelation in our day to write for the purpose enabling “science and theology to find new powers of integration that can help the modern debates between them,”[24] in order to show the world “that an adequate method for relating theology and science can be found, at least implicitly, in the evangelical view of general and special revelation.”[25] There seems to be an attitude of embarrassment among many evangelicals over the distain the secular scientists have for conservative Christianity. And that embarrassment has driven some to formulate a doctrine of natural theology that would justify efforts to harmonize Scripture with the widely accepted theories of naturalistic scientists in our culture.

Such an attitude is dangerous. The world will always regard the message of the true gospel as foolishness.[26] So if we begin striving to impress the world with our wisdom the only way to do it will be to alter the message. And altering the message will require adjusting the meaning of Scripture. Such an adjustment is often justified in the name of general revelation. The theories of the naturalistic scientists are elevated to the status of divine revelation and Scripture, then, must be “interpreted” (adjusted) in a manner that is consistent with the conclusions of the naturalists.

Perhaps the most outspoken of those who would elevate natural revelation to the level of special revelation is Hugh Ross, who says, “The facts of nature may be likened to a sixty-seventh book of the Bible.”[27] And in response to the question of whether he regards nature as being on an equal footing with the words of the Bible Ross responds as follows:

Let me simply state that truth, by definition, is information that is perfectly free of contradiction and error. Just as it is absurd to speak of some entity as more perfect than another, so also one revelation of God’s truth cannot be held as inferior or superior to another.[28]

In effect, then, Ross does indeed regard “the facts of nature” on an equal footing with the words of Scripture. In fact, I would argue that in practice he actually elevates his understanding of the facts of nature above the words of Scripture because where there is a conflict it is always the traditional interpretation of Scripture and not the traditional interpretation of science that is adjusted. If the Bible seems to point to a sudden, recent creation, and science seems to point to a gradual creation billions of years ago, Ross interprets the scientific data the same way the secularists do and reinterprets Scripture to mean something other than what it could be found to mean on its own, without the benefit of the scientific theory.

Ross’ argument about the absurdity of speaking of one form of revelation being more perfect than the other misses the point. It is not a matter of Scripture being more perfect than nature. Rather the message of Scripture is clearer, more direct, and more complete than the message of nature. If a man examined a picture that a woman drew he may be able to infer some generalized information about her from the picture. However if those conclusions were in conflict with a perfect biography of the woman, the inferences from the picture should be adjusted to match the clear statements in the biography – not because the biography is more perfect than the picture, but because it is a more explicit and direct source of information. An encyclopedia offers more information than a single word, not because it is a more perfect entity but because it is a more complete information source.

This is not to suggest that there is no place for the study of nature in our understanding of Scripture. It is a profitable exercise for us to compare our understanding of Scripture to our observations of reality because we know that if there is ever a conflict, either our interpretation of our observations of reality is incorrect or our interpretation of Scripture is incorrect (or both). When this happens every effort must be made to discover where the incorrect interpretation has occurred. Neither conclusion should be altered, however, until an actual interpretive error is discovered. If no error can be found on either side it is better to hold the two conclusions in tension than to revert to an irrational or incorrect means of interpretation for one side or the other.
For example, if there is a question regarding the meaning of the Hebrew word yom in Genesis one, the question must be answered by the rules of the normal use of language; not by speculations drawn from scientific theories. Unless it can be demonstrated that an interpretation was the one most likely intended by the original author, it must be rejected. If scientific information would seem to call for the word yom to refer to vast ages there is nothing wrong with using that information to motivate us to recheck our exegesis to make sure it is correct. However exegetical conclusions should never be altered simply to make the conclusions match what we think we have learned from science.

It should also be noted that inferences must always be adjusted to fit propositional statements and objective facts, and all scientific theories about the original creation are inferences. We can make no direct observation of what the creation originally looked like. We can only observe what we see now with regard to how things are presently changing and draw inferences from that in order to extrapolate backwards. These inferences are of limited value, however, since we do not know exactly how things looked when they were created and exactly what physical effect the fall had on the creation.

If we can not know if passages like Genesis one are literal or figurative based on grammar, context and the rules of language, and if we have to have scientific information to know what it means, then we can have no confidence that our interpretations throughout the rest of the Bible are correct. Science, for example tells us that resurrections do not happen. Should we then reinterpret the resurrection accounts of Christ as allegory or myth? What about the second coming, judgment day, the millennial Kingdom, the New Jerusalem, the eternal state? Do we have to wait until we can make scientific observations before we will know if those passages are literal or symbolic of something completely different? If a person is willing to alter his method of interpreting the Bible to fit the opinions of naturalistic scientists, that is a very slippery slope. If our observations of nature (where we observe no resurrections or second comings of Christ) can govern our interpretation of special revelation, what is to prevent us from “harmonizing” the eschatological promises with science by turning them into allegories?[29]

This principle highlights the reason why special revelation is necessary. Natural revelation could be loosely defined as “information about God that is implied by the creation,” whereas special revelation could be defined as “information about God that is stated explicitly by God.” The Bible is needed as an objective standard against which our inferences from the creation must be checked. To alter the meaning of the text of Scripture to fit a particular theory drawn from inferences is an approach normally only taken when dealing with dishonest people. When it is suspected that a person may be lying in his explicit statements, the skeptical listener may choose to believe contrary data he inferred from the dishonest person’s actions over what that person actually says. However the only reason for such an approach would be the belief that the person’s explicit statements cannot be trusted. This, of course, is an unacceptable approach with the Word God. Since God is perfectly honest we should interpret His actions in light of His explicit statements rather than interpreting His explicit statements in light of inferences we draw from His works.

Psychology

Another important area in which people in the church have tended to elevate human wisdom above special revelation is in the realm of counseling. Those who follow an integrationist approach have suggested that the Bible alone is inadequate to address the psychological problems people have. In their critique of the nouthetic counselors’ insistence on the sufficiency of Scripture for all psychological needs Clinton and Ohlschlanger suggest that such an approach is “narrowly conceived” and “tends to be weak on understanding the complexity of human motivation.”[30] In response to the idea that the Bible alone is sufficient to enable us to counsel one another Gary Collins says, “we limit our counseling effectiveness when we pretend that the discoveries of psychology have nothing to contribute to the understanding and solution of problems.”[31] Collins insists that,

Surely there are times, many times, when a sensitive, psychologically trained, committed Christian counselor can help people though psychological techniques and with psychological insights that God has allowed us to discover, but that he has not chosen to reveal in the Bible …. The Word of God never claims to have all the answers to all of life’s problems.[32]

Most writers who argue for an integrationist approach to counseling begin with the assumption that everything that is true falls under the category of natural revelation and should therefore be integrated with truths revealed by special revelation. Douglas Bookman cites the following three examples:

If integration is conceptualized as the search for truth concerning human nature, and God is identified as the source of this truth, the next logical issue involves the revelation of this truth. It has traditionally been held that God reveals this truth to us through both general and special revelation, with both nature and the Bible serving as expressions or representations of this truth. The disciplines of psychology and theology are attempts to discover and systematize truth by means of the study of the natural sciences and biblical revelation.[33]

Since God is the creator of the universe, all principles and laws have their origin in him. What is often called “nature” in science or philosophy is in reality God’s creation. As his creation, nature and its laws reveal the Creator. Hence, theologians have referred to the picture of God in nature as general revelation because nature reveals God as a powerful and orderly creator.[34]

The task of integration involves an explicit relating of truth gleaned from general or natural revelation to that derived from special or biblical revelation, of interrelating knowledge gained from the world and knowledge gained from the Word …. The integration movement offers a rapprochement by proposing the adoption of two premises: 1) God is the source of all truth no matter where it is found; 2) God is the source of all truth no matter how it is found.

To the integrationist, natural revelation supports special revelation instead of being a rival methodology. That is, if God is consistent (immutable) as the Scriptures suggest (e.g., Mal.3:6), the knowledge based in revelation should parallel and complement that derived from reason. Both will complement that founded in replication and observation. Underlying this approach is a faith statement common to scientist and theologian alike: the laws that govern the operation of the world are discoverable.[35]

These writers are correct in their assertion that many true and helpful things can be discovered through human investigation. They are incorrect, however, in elevating such truths to the status of divine revelation. The passages of Scripture that teach the doctrine of natural revelation do not teach that all information all truth is revelation. The passages most commonly appealed to by integrationists in support of their theories of general revelation are Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-21. Two important marks of general revelation are clear from these texts. First, the information available from general revelation is universally known to (but suppressed by) all people in all times in all places.

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.[36]

what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them …. God’s invisible qualities …. have been clearly seen, being understood …. they knew God[37]

Commenting on this passage James Boice observes:

Paul is not saying that there is enough evidence about God in nature that the scientist, who carefully probes nature’s mysteries, can be aware of him. He is not saying that the sign is there but hidden, that we are only able to find it if we look carefully. Paul is saying that the sign is plain. It is a billboard. No one, no matter how weak-minded or insignificant, can be excused for missing it. There is enough evidence of God in a flower to lead a child as well as a scientist to worship him.[38]

Millard Erickson, Wayne House and Bruce Demerest all define natural revelation exactly the same. It is “God’s communication of himself to all persons at all times and in all places.”[39]

A second important principle is that the rejection of natural revelation results in damnation.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness[40]

God’s invisible qualities …. have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.[41]

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. …. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind[42]

There is a great amount of information that can be obtained through human investigation that, while helpful, does not fall into the category of natural revelation because it is neither universally known nor essential for salvation. It is evident to all people everywhere that God exists and that he is the powerful Creator, and when that revelation is rejected, a person is under condemnation. The rate of decay of carbon 14 atoms or the methodology of Rogerian counseling techniques are not immediately obvious to all people at all times, and no one will be consigned to hell for rejecting the Big Bang theory.
The theories of psychology, like other human wisdom, are comprised of both truth and error. And even the true aspects fall short of the status of universally known truth that is essential for salvation and are therefore not natural revelation.

Additionally, the fact that error is mixed with truth is another very important difference between the theories of psychology and God’s Word. Those who argue for integrationism in most cases have failed to take into consideration Scripture’s very strong words against human wisdom when applied to spiritual matters. The integration of human wisdom with the gospel when applied to spiritual matters does not enhance the effectiveness of the gospel. In fact, it empties the gospel of its power.[43] The pursuit of human wisdom is the pursuit of that which God has promised to frustrate and destroy.[44] Far from adding to the effectiveness of Scripture, human wisdom is not even sufficient to enable a person to know God relationally at all.[45]

Paul goes on to point out that by definition revelation cannot be obtained through human investigation.[46] Human wisdom, when applied to building a car, brain surgery, rocket science, or some form of manipulating matter is very valuable; but when applied to a spiritual reality is worse than worthless. It serves as a contamination, not an improvement to Scripture. It leads to self-imposed worship, false humility, and harsh treatment of the body,[47] is hollow and deceptive taking one captive,[48] and leads to bitter envy, selfishness, disorder, and every evil practice.[49]

The Role of Human Wisdom

The axiom so frequently cited by integrationists and theistic evolutionists, “All truth is God’s truth,” misses the point. The question is not over whether God would agree that all true things are true. Trueness per se is not the only quality that matters. Also important are both the source and kind of truth. Truth obtained through special revelation contains supernatural qualities that effect salvation and sanctification. Truth obtained through human investigation apart from divine revelation does not.[50] Moreover, truth derived from the Bible must take precedence over the theories of human wisdom because the Bible supplies us with perfect truth, uncontaminated with error; and because the Bible supplies us with propositional truth about God rather than mere implications. There is a greater chance of error in interpreting implied messages than messages that are explicitly stated.

Application for Ministry

This has been the most helpful study I have done thus far in this degree program. It has helped me gain a much more precise understanding of a doctrine that was unclear in my mind. I believe a proper understanding of the nature of general revelation is of great importance in the church in our culture.
​
My conclusions have led me in the opposite direction of so many who have seen the study of natural revelation as the key to solving the dispute between creationism and science or nouthetic counseling and integrationist counseling. The findings of the geologist, biologist or psychologist are no more in the category of divine revelation than the machinations of the false religionist. All human investigation into truth results in truth mixed with error, and for that reason must be judged in a very different way than Scripture, which is pure truth with no error. The solution to the conflict between naturally attained wisdom and that which comes from Scripture is simply to subordinate the former to the latter bringing all things under the lordship of our great God and Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Aquinas, Thomas. Treatise on Law. Summa Theologia. www.newadvent.org/summa/209402.htm.

Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive and Readable Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1986.

Bookman, Douglas. Introduction to Biblical Counseling: a Basic Guide to the Principles and Practices of Counseling. Dallas: Word. 1994.

Bulkley. Ed. Why Christians Can’t Trust Psychology. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers. 1993.

Cassell, Paul. “Karl Barth on Revelation and God’s Relationship to the World.” The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology. 2005. www.people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_750_barth.htm

Clinton, Timothy and Ohlschlanger, George. Competent Christian Counseling. Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press. 2002.

Collins, Gary R.. Christian Counseling: A Comprehensive Guide, Revised Edition. Dallas: Word Publishing. 1988.

Collins, Gary R.. Can You Trust Psychology?. Dower’s Grove: Intervarsity Press. 1988.

Crockett, William V. and Sigountos, James G. Through No Fault of Their Own: The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1991.

Diehi, David W.. “Evangelicalism and General Revelation: An Unfinished Agenda” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 30 no.4 (December. 1987) electronic edition. Galaxie Software: Garland. TX: 441.

Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 2001.

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker. 1998.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand rapids: Zondervan. 1994.

Hindson, Ed and Eyrich, Howard eds. Totally Sufficient. Eugene. Oregon: Harvest House. 1997.

House, H. Wayne. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. 1992.

McKenna, John E.. “Natural Theology” Perspective on Science and Christian Faith. 49 (June 1997).

Murray, Iain H.. Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the years 1950-2000. Carlisle. Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust. 2000.

Ross, Hugh. Creation and Time. Colorado Springs: NavPress: 1994.

Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1992.

Strawbridge, Gregg. “Karl Barth’s Rejection Of Natural Theology . Or An Exegesis Of Romans 1:19-20.” Paper presented at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Meeting. San Francisco. http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/barth.htm#N_25.

Strong, Agustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge: Judson Press. 1907.

[1] Bruce Demarest, Walter A. Elwell ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001, 1019.
[2] Karl Barth, cited by Gregg Strawbridge, “Karl Barth’s Rejection Of Natural Theology , Or An Exegesis Of Romans 1:19-20,” Paper presented at the 1997 Evangelical Theological Society Meeting, San Francisco, http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/barth.htm#N_25.
[3] Demarest, 1020.
[4] Ibid
[5] Aquinas, Treatise on Law, Summa Theologia, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209402.htm.
[6] Paul Cassell, “Karl Barth on Revelation and God’s Relationship to the World,” The Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Modern Western Theology, 2005, www.people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/mwt/dictionary/mwt_themes_750_barth.htm
[7] Psalm 19:1-4 (All Bible citations from the New International Version).
[8] Romans 1:19-20.
[9] Romans 10:14.
[10] Matthew 4:4, Deuteronomy 32:47, 1 Peter 2:2.
[11] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Grand rapids: Zondervan, 1994: 119.
[12] Psalm 119:9, 11, 45, 50, 52, 67, 92, 93, 99.
[13] Romans 1:32, 2:14-15.
[14] David W. Diehi, “Evangelicalism and General Revelation: An Unfinished Agenda” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 30 no.4 (December, 1987) electronic edition, Galaxie Software: Garland, TX: 441.
[15] Billy Graham, cited by Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the years 1950-2000, Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000: 73.
[16] Ibid, 74-5.
[17] Ibid, 75.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Robert Schuller, cited by Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided: A Record of Crucial Change in the years 1950-2000, Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000: 75.
[20] Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God’s Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992, 157-8.
[21] Agustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1907, 843.
[22] John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992, 283-5
[23] Ed Hindson and Howard Eyrich eds, Totally Sufficient, Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1997, 21
[24] John E. McKenna, “Natural Theology” Perspective on Science and Christian Faith, 49 (June 1997): 96
[25] David W. Deihi, “Evangelicalism and General Revelation: An Unfinished Agenda,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1998 (electronic edition), Galaxie Software: Garland, TX
[26] 1 Corinthians 1:18.
[27] Hugh Ross, Creation and Time, Colorado Springs: NavPress: 1994, 56
[28] Ibid, 57.
[29] I do not mean to imply with this line of argument that those who believe in old earth are any less committed to the doctrine of the resurrection than I am. I am only suggesting that in order for them to be steadfast in their faith on that point, they have to take a much different approach to the accounts of the resurrection than they take to the accounts of the creation.
[30] Timothy Clinton and George Ohlschlanger, Competent Christian Counseling, Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 2002, 46
[31] Gary R. Collins, Christian Counseling: A Comprehensive Guide, Revised Edition, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1988, 22.
[32] Gary R. Collins, Can You Trust Psychology?, Dower’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1988, 96-7.
[33] James D. Guy Jr. cited by Douglas Bookman, Introduction to Biblical Counseling: a Basic Guide to the Principles and Practices of Counseling, Dallas: Word, 1994: 69.
[34] Fleck and Carter, cited by Douglas Bookman, Introduction to Biblical Counseling: a Basic Guide to the Principles and Practices of Counseling, Dallas: Word, 1994: 69-70.
[35] R.L. Timpe, cited by Douglas Bookman, Introduction to Biblical Counseling: a Basic Guide to the Principles and Practices of Counseling, Dallas: Word, 1994: 70.
[36] Psalm 19:1-4.
[37] Romans 1:19-21.
[38] James Montgomery Boice, Foundations of the Christian Faith: A Comprehensive and Readable Theology, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986, 31.
[39] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998, 178.
H. Wayne House, Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992, 21.
Bruce Demarest, Walter A. Elwell ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001, 1019.
[40] Romans 1:18.
[41] Romans 1:20.
[42] Romans 1:21-28.
[43] 1 Corinthians 1:17.
[44] 1 Corinthians 1:19.
[45] 1 Corinthians 1:21.
[46] 1 Corinthians 2:11.
[47] Colossians 2:23.
[48] Colossians 2:8.
[49] James 3:14-16
[50] This statement can also be made with regard to natural revelation. While natural revelation is sufficient to condemn (Ro.1:18-21) it is not sufficient to save (Ro.10:14). Regarding sanctification it is significant that while Psalm 19 describes natural revelation as only announcing the glory and work of God, Scripture is uniquely capable of reviving the soul, making wise the simple, giving joy to the heart, and giving light to the eyes.