Basic HTML Version
28
distinction, however, which gradually gained currency, is that of general and special revelation.
Dr. Warfield distinguishes the two as follows: “The one is addressed generally to all intelligent
creatures, and is therefore accessible to all men; the other is addressed to a special class of
sinners, to whom God would make known His salvation. The one has in view to meet and
supply the natural need of creatures for knowledge of their God; the other to rescue broken
and deformed sinners from their sin and its consequences.”[Revelation and Inspiration, p. 6.]
General revelation is rooted in creation, is addressed to man as man, and more particularly to
human reason, and finds its purpose in the realization of the end of his creation, to know God
and thus enjoy communion with Him. Special revelation is rooted in the redemptive plan of
God, is addressed to man as sinner, can be properly understood and appropriated only by faith,
and serves the purpose of securing the end for which man was created in spite of the
disturbance wrought by sin. In view of the eternal plan of redemption it should be said that this
special revelation did not come in as an after-thought, but was in the mind of God from the
very beginning.
There was considerable difference of opinion respecting the relation of these two to each
other. According to Scholasticism natural revelation provided the necessary data for the
construction of a scientific natural theology by human reason. But while it enabled man to
attain to a scientific knowledge of God as the ultimate cause of all things, it did not provide for
the knowledge of the mysteries, such as the Trinity, the incarnation, and redemption. This
knowledge is supplied by special revelation. It is a knowledge that is not rationally
demonstrable but must be accepted by faith. Some of the earlier Scholastics were guided by
the slogan “Credo ut intelligam,” and, after accepting the truths of special revelation by faith,
considered it necessary to raise faith to understanding by a rational demonstration of those
truths, or at least to prove their rationality. Thomas Aquinas, however, considered this
impossible, except in so far as special revelation contained truths which also formed a part of
natural revelation. In his opinion the mysteries, which formed the real contents of supernatural
revelation, did not admit of any logical demonstration. He held, however, that there could be
no conflict between the truths of natural and those of supernatural revelation. If there appears
to be a conflict, there is something wrong with one’s philosophy. The fact remains, however,
that he recognized, besides the structure reared by faith on the basis of supernatural
revelation, a system of scientific theology on the foundation of natural revelation. In the former
one assents to something because it is revealed, in the latter because it is perceived as true in
the light of natural reason. The logical demonstration, which is out of the question in the one, is
the natural method of proof in the other.
The Reformers rejected the dualism of the Scholastics and aimed at a synthesis of God’s
twofold revelation. They did not believe in the ability of human reason to construct a scientific