Basic HTML Version
29
system of theology on the basis of natural revelation pure and simple. Their view of the matter
may be represented as follows: As a result of the entrance of sin into the world, the
handwriting of God in nature is greatly obscured, and is in some of the most important matters
rather dim and illegible. Moreover, man is stricken with spiritual blindness, and is thus deprived
of the ability to read aright what God had originally plainly written in the works of creation. In
order to remedy the matter and to prevent the frustration of His purpose, God did two things.
In His supernatural revelation He republished the truths of natural revelation, cleared them of
misconception, interpreted them with a view to the present needs of man, and thus
incorporated them in His supernatural revelation of redemption. And in addition to that He
provided a cure for the spiritual blindness of man in the work of regeneration and
sanctification, including spiritual illumination, and thus enabled man once more to obtain true
knowledge of God, the knowledge that carries with it the assurance of eternal life.
When the chill winds of Rationalism swept over Europe, natural revelation was exalted at the
expense of supernatural revelation. Man became intoxicated with a sense of his own ability and
goodness, refused to listen and submit to the voice of authority that spoke to him in Scripture,
and reposed complete trust in the ability of human reason to lead him out of the labyrinth of
ignorance and error into the clear atmosphere of true knowledge. Some who maintained that
natural revelation was quite sufficient to teach men all necessary truths, still admitted that they
might learn them sooner with the aid of supernatural revelation. Others denied that the
authority of supernatural revelation was complete, until its contents had been demonstrated
by reason. And finally Deism in some of its forms denied, not only the necessity, but also the
possibility and reality of supernatural revelation. In Schleiermacher the emphasis shifts from
the objective to the subjective, from revelation to religion, and that without any distinction
between natural and revealed religion. The term “revelation” is still retained, but is reserved as
a designation of the deeper spiritual insight of man, an insight which does not come to him,
however, without his own diligent search. What is called revelation from one point of view,
may be called human discovery from another. This view has become quite characteristic of
modern theology. Says Knudson: “But this distinction between natural and revealed theology
has now largely fallen into disuse. The present tendency is to draw no sharp line of distinction
between revelation and the natural reason, but to look upon the highest insights of reason as
themselves divine revelations. In any case there is no fixed body of revealed truth, accepted on
authority, that stands opposed to the truths of reason. All truth to-day rests on its power of
appeal to the human mind.”[The Doctrine of God, p. 173.]
It is this view of revelation that is denounced in the strongest terms by Barth. He is particularly
interested in the subject of revelation, and wants to lead the Church back from the subjective
to the objective, from religion to revelation. In the former he sees primarily man’s efforts to