One of the most frequent and consistent themes throughout the Bible is that creation and its elements reveal God’s existence and nature. Numerous passages say that some of God’s characteristics, such as his righteousness and faithfulness, are expressed in creation. Some say that virtually everyone has some knowledge of God, because nature overwhelmingly testifies to his existence and action.
But ask the animals, and they will teach you,
or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you,
or let the fish of the sea inform you.
Which of all these does not know
that the hand of the LORD has done this?
In his hand is the life of every creature
and the breath of all mankind. (Job 12:7-10)
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. (Ps. 19:1-4)
Love and faithfulness meet together;
righteousness and peace kiss each other.
Faithfulness springs forth from the earth,
and righteousness looks down from heaven. (Ps. 85:10-11)
His lightning lights up the world;
the earth sees and trembles.
The mountains melt like wax before the LORD,
before the Lord of all the earth.
The heavens proclaim his righteousness,
and all the peoples see his glory. (Ps. 97:4-6)
God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah
His glory covered the heavens
and his praise filled the earth. (Hab. 3:3)
In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy. (Acts 14:16-17)
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Rom. 1:18-20)
This is a partial and very incomplete list. Other, more extensive passages along these lines include Job 38-40; Ps. 104; Acts 17:23-31 and many others.
The same view of creation that empties nature of divinity also makes it a revelation of God and leaves it filled with pointers to God. The fact that all things find their origin in the creative work of God means that everything, in some way, bears witness to the creation and is revelatory of the Creator. According to the Bible every rock and tree and creature can be said to testify of God, declare his glory and show forth his handiwork (Ps 8:1; 19:1; 104; 148). We might accurately speak of the creation as divine messenger (cf. Ps 104:3-4).{i}
Note that what is “shown forth” is that God created everything; that is, that each element of creation, as well as creation as a whole, bears the imprint of God’s craftsmanship. In other words, God didn’t create the universe and then remove all evidence that he did so; he created everything in such a way that it cries out that it comes from his hand.
This is one aspect of what is called “general revelation,” that is, revelation that is available to all people in all times (another aspect being the human conscience).{ii} This contrasts with “special revelation” which is only revealed to some people in specific times (this would include the Bible and the life of Jesus). As the Belgic Confession, written in 1561, put it:
We know him by two means: 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.{iii}
Creation’s testimony vs. humanity’s testimony
A similar biblical theme is that the elements of creation are sometimes called upon as witnesses of the events which took place in their presence. For example, God states that heaven and earth will be a witness to his promises to the Hebrews (Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; Ps. 50:4-6). The prophets call upon creation to bear witness to the truth of their message (Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 6:19; 22:29; Mic. 6:1-2). Often, stones are set in place or altars are made—Hebrew altars being simply uncut rocks piled on top of each other (Exod. 20:25; Dt. 27:5-6; Josh. 8:30-1)—so that these elements of creation can bear witness to promises made between God and people, or just between people (Gen. 28:16-19; 31:43-53; Josh. 22:26-34; 24:26-27; Isa. 19:19-20).{iv}
The witness of creation is even put side by side with the witness of special revelation (Deut. 30:19, 31:19, 26-28; Ps. 19). This isn’t because either of these witnesses can’t be trusted by itself—that we need one of them in order to verify or falsify the other—but because they are complementary. That is, they are equally valid and true, although not necessarily equally illuminating (obviously, special revelation tells us more about God than general revelation).
This contrasts strongly with the biblical statements about the reliability of human witness. We are warned that we need more than one person as a witness, for the simple reason that people lie (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19). A moment’s reflection will make evident why there is such a disparity between the witness of creation and the witness of human beings: creation and its elements don’t have wills, and thus cannot lie or misrepresent. They can’t give a false impression of what has transpired, because they can’t alter the effects that events have had upon them. Were this not the case, then all of the Scripture passages which tell us that God reveals his faithfulness and steadfastness through his creation would simply be wrong.
General and special revelation
While some outstanding theologians have tried to deny the doctrine of general revelation, such as Barth and some Dutch Reformed theologians, they did not do so because of the biblical evidence, but rather because their theological systems did not allow for any knowledge of God that does not come through special revelation. Their attempts to get around the numerous biblical statements that creation does reveal the truth about God to everyone who has ever lived are extremely forced, and represent a primary weakness of their otherwise brilliant theologies.{v}
Skepticism as to how far general revelation can be trusted to reveal truth is parallel to the same skepticism raised against special revelation: it has been argued by some theologians that Scripture is only inerrant in reference to spiritual or soteriological (salvation) issues, but might contain scientific and historical errors.{vi} I believe that Scripture is inerrant in all areas it touches upon, whether it be theological, historical, or scientific. My grounds for this are that the Bible purports to be revelation from God—the God of truth who cannot lie (Tit. 1:2; Heb. 6:18). As such, it is true and reliable in everything that it actually affirms.
Now, it might be said that this is what makes special revelation special; I would respond to the contrary that this is what makes it revelation. Similarly, general revelation is true and reliable because it’s revelation. What makes it general is the fact that it is generally available, and only communicates general ideas about God, such as his existence, his eternality, and his oneness—although these ideas may be communicated with very specific information. Special revelation is special in the sense that it is available in special circumstances (such as the hearing of the gospel) and communicates much more specific ideas about God, such as his plan for salvation and his triune nature.
It must also be noted that, just as special revelation is perspicuous (clear), so is general revelation; clarity is a characteristic of God’s revealing himself. He doesn’t speak to us in such a way that we can’t understand what he’s saying. However, just as special revelation can sometimes seem to be saying something it’s not (Luke 14:26), so can general revelation; when I look around myself, I don’t immediately perceive that the earth is roughly spherical, or is in motion around the sun, but on closer examination of all the evidence, I can’t help but conclude that it is.
To understand anything, of course, some intelligent attention and methodical inquiry is required. What is not mysterious also may not be obvious. And some subject matters are more difficult to penetrate than others. But God has created all things in such a way that they are inherently intelligible.
They have parts, these parts have properties, which in turn make possible relationships between the parts to form larger wholes, which in turn have properties that make possible relationships between larger wholes, that form still larger wholes, and so on. This basic structure of created reality applies to everything from an atom or grain of salt to the solar system or the galaxy, from a thought or a feeling to a whole person or a social unit.{vii}
The extent of general revelation
Some have argued that while we can trust what creation says about God, we can’t trust what it says about itself.{viii} It’s hard to make any sense of this, though: what creation tells us about God is derived from what it tells us about itself—that it was created and is ordered, from which we infer the existence of a Creator and Orderer. This doesn’t merely refer to the spiritual awe we feel when we look at the night sky and sense God’s creative hand as responsible (though it certainly means that too), but also to the intellectual recognition that the laws of nature imply a law-giver who exists independently of nature.
Perhaps a more sophisticated argument might be that only facts which point directly to God can be considered reliable, since the Bible only talks about the reliability of creation when we can infer God’s existence and action from it. Most scientific facts don’t seem to reflect God in any significant way: as Christian philosopher J. P. Moreland has stated, it’s difficult to see how the pressure, temperature, and volume in a mole of hydrogen gas point to God.{ix}
However, the Bible states pretty explicitly that creation as a whole, and everything in creation, points to God—every tree, every rock, every creature, as well as the interaction between everything (Job 36-38; Ps 8:1; 19:1; 104; 148). If we don’t see how some arbitrary scientific fact points to God, we have to focus on how it functions in the big scheme of creation. Everything in creation is a part of the grand design and, as such, points to God. This includes the minutiae and the seemingly insignificant facts (from a theological perspective) about the orbit of a particular electron around its nucleus.
Objections and responses:
Objection: Historical records only go back a few thousand years. Since no one was there but God, we can’t know of any event before this except by God’s Word.
Response: Creation was there, and according to the Bible, it declares what occurred. Moreover, even if there were people there, we know from the Bible that their testimony would not be as trustworthy as that of the universe. Creation is a much more reliable witness than fallen humanity.
Objection: We only know the more intricate aspects of creation by means of fallible human testimony. Therefore, they can’t be considered revelation.
Response: We only know the more intricate aspects of theology by means of fallible human testimony as well—most Christians don’t have detailed knowledge of Hebrew and Greek syntax, and have to rely on the experts. All this means is that we should not be uncritical in our examination of theology or science. But the Christian has no recourse to dismiss scientific claims that go against her interpretation of Gen. 1, any more than she can dismiss theological and exegetical claims that go against her interpretation of Gen. 1.
Objection: Perhaps a creation that looks billions of years old demonstrates how limitless God’s power is. If God can create a universe to look that different from how it actually is, he’s obviously a very powerful God.
Response: This is a statement that God created the universe with a false appearance of age, which will be dealt with in detail in chapter 13. For now, I’ll just say that if God tells us that the universe can be trusted to reveal his trustworthiness and faithfulness, then to make it look different than it actually is wouldn’t demonstrate his power. It would demonstrate his caprice, his chicanery, his untrustworthiness and unfaithfulness. Moreover, the creation of the universe out of nothing (ex nihilo) displays God’s power, and I don’t see how creating it to look differently than it is would more persuasively do so.
Objection: Sin has affected how we view creation. Therefore, we can’t trust what it seems to be telling us.
Response: Sin has also affected how we interpret the Bible. This doesn’t mean that we can’t trust what it seems to be telling us. It simply means that we are prone to error and have to be careful.
Objection: The natural world is cursed. It appears differently than it actually is because of the fall of humankind.
Response: But all of the statements in the Bible that say we can trust the witness of creation are made to fallen people living in a fallen world. In other words, God tells us that we can trust the witness of creation after the fall. Whether God’s statement that the land would be cursed (Gen. 3:17-19) affected a change in the natural world, or was just referring to the fact that God sent Adam and Eve out of the paradise he had created for them is a debatable point,{x} but creation’s witness was not affected. If God’s cursing of creation means that nature was fundamentally altered, it would bear witness to such alteration. Since it does not so bear witness, God’s cursing of creation did not fundamentally alter its nature, whatever else it means.
I think the problem here is that people apply the categories of humankind’s fall to creation’s fall. The effects in the first case are pervasive and impact every facet of the human being. However, there is no biblical or theological reason to think that this is true of creation, that its fall affected every aspect of the universe, such as its witness and reliability. Again, the Bible tells us after the fall that creation is a reliable and trustworthy witness.
Objection: Part of the concept of general revelation is that it is available to all people in all times. Therefore, modern discoveries do not qualify.
Response: Saying that general revelation is available to all people in all times is just theological shorthand for saying that creation is available to all people in all times to study, and thus all people are responsible for the knowledge gained thereby. It doesn’t mean that just because we in the modern world can discover more about creation than people in ancient times, that these new discoveries won’t testify to God’s creative hand. One of the most frequently cited examples of creation bearing witness to God is how the universe’s basic properties must be extremely fine-tuned in order for life to exist—and this knowledge was unknown until fairly recently.
Objection: The apostle Paul warned the church in Corinth, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Therefore, Christians should not trust sources of information other than the Bible, such as nature.
Response: The Greek term for “what is written” is gegraptai. This is a technical rabbinical term which referred exclusively to the Old Testament. The New Testament authors—and Paul, a rabbi, in particular—followed this use: whenever this term is used in the New Testament, it refers only to the Old Testament.{xi}
So if Paul intended to tell his readers not to go beyond the Old Testament in a general sense, this restriction would obviously include the New Testament. In other words, Paul would be saying to stick exclusively to the Old Testament in all things; in which case the New Testament should be considered null and void. Obviously, this is not an acceptable position for a Christian.
Fortunately, that’s not what Paul meant. The context of this passage is how the Corinthian church was setting up different parties, one following Paul, another following Apollos, and so on. Paul responds to this situation by saying to follow only God and his Christ, not mere men, and so not to go beyond what the Old Testament says about how all human beings are on an equal level before God. So Paul’s statement has a particular context, and should not be generalized from this context.
Objection: To trust nature violates the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura.
Response: The doctrine of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) is emphatically not the claim that God only communicates to us through Scripture. Rather, sola Scriptura makes two claims: First, the knowledge obtained via special revelation is sufficient for salvation. But no one is suggesting that the Bible needs to be supplemented by general revelation in order for us to know God’s salvation plan, for the simple reason that general revelation is not supplying us with soteriological, or salvific, information. At most it convicts us of sin (Rom. 1:20) and shows us that God is providential (Acts 14:16-17). From these premises we could conclude that God may provide some sort of remedy for our sin, but this is far from certain. This is discussed in more detail in the following chapter.
Second, sola Scriptura is the claim that when God does communicate to us, he does so in a way that we can understand, not in some kind of spiritual language that is different from ordinary language, and is therefore inaccessible to study or analysis. This doesn’t mean that everything in the Bible is simple, or should be understood superficially any more than physics should be. But it’s not written in some kind of secret code that only a spiritually elite class can understand.
Notes:
{i} “Creation” (1998), 181, italics added. See some very similar sentiments in C. S. Lewis (1961), 69-71.
{ii} I’m conflating creation’s testimony of God’s existence with its testimony of God’s goodness or providence.
{iii} Belgic Confession, art. 2.
{iv} Obviously these latter cases are not as trustworthy as the former cases, since they involve human beings altering nature in order to bear witness to something. I’m including them because they alter nature in an extremely limited way, by simply moving a rock into a different position, or moving several into a pile.
{v} Erickson (1998a), 187-94; Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest (1996), 1:64-5, 81-2.
{vi} Dewey Beegle (1973), 175-224.
{vii} Dallas Willard (2002), 31.
{viii} James B. Jordan (1999).
{ix} J. P. Moreland (1987), 200.
{x} See chapter 6.
{xi}