Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 51:2 (Fall 1989)
Article: General Revelation in Its Relation to Special Revelation
Author: N. H. Gootjes

WTJ 51:2 (Fall 1989) p. 359

General Revelation in Its Relation to Special Revelation

N. H. Gootjes

The first half of this twentieth century saw a great attack on the Reformed doctrine of general revelation. Karl Barth rejected not only all natural theology, but also general revelation as it found a classical expression in the Belgic Confession, art. 2.1 But the attack has lost much of its fierceness. Barth modified his views, allowing for what he called the lights of the universe. They receive their light from Jesus Christ, and shine upon all men.2 And in the circles that were influenced by him, general revelation is again a subject that is being discussed.3

Therefore we need no longer concentrate on the defense of this doctrine. We need no longer grasp it with all our might lest it be struck right out of our hands. We can take the time to reconsider our own tradition on general revelation. If we take for granted that general revelation is a proven biblical doctrine, how should it be defined and distinguished from special revelation?

There is reason to consider these questions. The definitions of general revelation presented differ more than can be attributed simply to the personal style of the writer. In the following I propose to investigate three views on general revelation, presented within the “conservative” community in the twentieth century. In the last part I will use elements from this discussion in an attempt to find a consistent view on general revelation and its relation to special revelation.

I. L. Berkhof

Discussing revelation, L. Berkhof mentions that there are two current distinctions, that between natural and supernatural revelation and that between general and special revelation. These distinctions each have their own right and possibilities. They do partially overlap but are not identical. The dis-

WTJ 51:2 (Fall 1989) p. 360

tinction between natural and supernatural revelation concentrates on the origin and the mode of revelation, while the distinction between general and special revelation “contemplates the extent and purpose of the revelation.”4

This seems to be a clear-cut distinction. Concerning the extent, general revelation presumably contains less information, special revelation more. Concerning the purpose, general revelation aims at something different than special revelation. Berkhof does not work this out consistently, however.

He says about general revelation that it “rests on the basis of creation, is addressed to all int...