Understanding General Revelation

Revelation means "the unmasking of something that is hidden," so that it may be seen clearly and its true nature or identity known. The Hebrew word gala basically means to "uncover" or "remove" and in certain contexts it means to "reveal." The Greek word is apokalupto meaning to "uncover," "reveal," or "disclose" and is always used in the New Testament in a non-physical sense (i.e. a revelation of information). These words indicate what is implied when the Bible refers to God's speaking to and/or relating Himself to men and women. Biblical religion is a religion of revelation; a faith based on the assertion that God has come to us and disclosed Himself. If then we are to know God, revelation is indispensable. In the theological sense, then, revelation means that God brings to light the religious truth that would otherwise be held in darkness apart from, or unknown to, His creation.
Revelation down through the centuries has been traditionally divided into two categories. The first is general revelation. This refers to God's way of communicating to all people everywhere in the world throughout history. In other words, it is universal and its content is also general in nature in that God discloses truth to man through natural evidences apart from the Bible and other "special revelation." This form of God's revelation, the revelatio realis (so called in Protestant theology) has also been called "natural revelation" because of the way God reveals Himself to man through nature and through the inner being of human kind. Demarest describes it as "divine disclosure to all persons at all times and places by which they come to know that God is, and what He is like."
The second is called special revelation and is much more detailed and precise in its nature and content. Special revelation builds upon and expands general revelation. It reveals God and His divine truth more fully and with greater clarity through the very words of the Bible, through events in history, and most significantly in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Many would include here such things as prophecy, visions (Theophanies), and religious experience as well. C.F.H. Henry states that special revelation is "God's communication to humankind of divine truth, that is, His manifestation of Himself or of His will."
It is general revelation that we will focus upon for the purposes of this investigation, i.e. what God has revealed to us, how He has revealed Himself, and the implications of that revelation with respect to salvation.
B.A. Demarest concludes that "general, or natural, revelation may be divided into two categories: internal (the innate sense of deity and conscience) and external (nature and providential history)." For the purposes of this paper we concur with Demarest that God has revealed Himself principally in three different and distinct ways: in nature, through history, and within the human condition. In general revelation God is notably seen through His creation (or nature). Pascal spoke of God as a Deus Absconditus - a hidden God, but he also held that this hidden God had revealed Himself, and therefore could be known. Since the universe is God's doing rather than a chance happening, we are able to discern something about the nature of God from an examination of creation. Genesis 1:1 says, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (All scripture quotations will be taken from the New American Standard Version unless otherwise stated) Believing the scriptures, we are obliged to agree that there was nothing except God before the universe was created and that He, God, created it - "Ex nihilo". There could be nothing before the beginning or it wouldn't be the beginning.
Let's begin our investigation by exploring general revelation's revelation of God through creation. We must remember however, that it is impossible for mankind to have knowledge of the Creator unless the Creator first takes the initiative to address His creation through revelation. God does this remarkably through the physical world we see around us and above us. In nature we can see His greatness through the expanse, systematic order and design of the universe, and the world in which we live. In Psalm 19:1-4 it says,

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.[There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun..." (KJV)

Notice that scripture says there are no words or speech - no language, only what is seen through our eyes. Yet what we see is deafening, declaring the handiwork of God. General revelation is seen here as continuous, unending - "day unto day.... and night unto night reveals knowledge." It has been available since the creation of time to everyone anywhere in the world until now. The scriptures are replete with verses claiming the authority and power of God in the universe. Psalms 8:3 says, "When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place.." Jeremiah 10:12 states, "But God made the earth by his power; he founded the world by his wisdom and stretched out the heavens by his understanding." Nature bears the signature of God. As the watch has a watchmaker, so the world has a World Maker. An eighteenth-century British theologian William Paley explained that no one of sound mind would ever conclude that a watch was the product of bits of dust, dirt, and rock being naturally formed by some mysterious natural process. Even if this process continued for an extremely long time, there would be no rational hope of a watch ever being assembled. Living organisms are infinitely more complex than a watch. Yet if the complexity of a watch demands an intelligent maker, certainly, Paley reasoned, living organisms on this planet demand a Maker of far greater intelligence and ingenuity. No one would say that a watch runs by accident and the same is true for the world and universe. Romans 1:19 and 20 bears witness to this when it says, "...because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Still Hume, Darwin and others have debated and rejected what seems to many to be the obvious.
Creation as an example of general revelation is objective in the sense that it exists independent of human activity. Its characteristics remain constant. One way it can be perceived is through our senses. Man can see the extreme complexity of the cosmos in harmony with itself. "Scientists have identified over two dozen measured parameters of the universe that must be narrowly fixed in value for any kind of conceivable life (not just life as we know it) to exist at any time in the history of the universe." We can also see and study the complexity and the exactness of life in agreement with its parts and the whole of God's creation. No matter how we interpret what we see, what we see does not change to any degree phenomenologically. The expanse of the cosmos, the vastness of the oceans, the rising and the setting of the sun, the interaction of life on this planet remains the same for all to contemplate.
So what does science tell us about God's existence from general revelation? Does God fundamentally exist? Does any god exist for that matter?
Science tells us that there are natural laws that rule and govern the universe. These laws are dependable, predictable, constant, and for the most part unchangeable. Although it is true that we cannot predict what they will do in the future, we can observe what they have done in the past. We must bear in mind that the arguments for the existence of God born from general revelation are not independent proofs for the existence of God, but rather corroborations and expositions of our innate conviction of His existence; and since God is Spirit, we must not demand the same type of proof the we insist upon for the existence of material things...; and lastly a single argument for the existence of God may be inadequate, but a number of them together are sufficient to bind the conscience and compel one to believe.
Thomas Aquinas believed all truth belongs to one of two realms. The lower realm is the realm of nature, the higher the realm of grace. While claims regarding the upper realm are to be accepted on authority, those of the lower realm may be known by reason.
William L. Craig developed an old argument in the late 1970's called Kalam's Cosmological Argument. The argument has it roots in Plato and Aristotle and was developed by medieval Islamic thinker al-Ghazali into an argument for the existence of God. "This argument assumes that something exists and argues from the existence of that thing to the existence of a First Cause or a Sufficient Reason of the cosmos." It simply states that whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. The universe exists. Therefore, the universe has a cause for it's coming into being. From the law of causality (a natural law) we know that every effect (or event) has a cause and is therefore finite. It has a beginning or a point at which it came into existence. So everything we know is caused by something else. "There cannot, however, be an infinite regress of causes, for if that were the case, the whole series of causes would never have begun. There must, therefore, be some uncaused cause (unmoved mover) or necessary being." This being is not only necessary but sufficient for creation. The argument is implied in Hebrews 3:4 when it says, "For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God." John 1:3 declares, "all things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." Unless a first cause (i.e. God) exists, the universe would have to be eternal because there would be an infinite series of causes and effects that would never lead to a first cause. Since it is impossible to complete an infinite series of causes (or events), the universe would have never come into existence. At some point there must have been a first cause or nothing subsequent would exist. Because no contingent being can cause itself to exist, the first cause must be uncaused or self-existent and thus must transcend the contingent universe. The God of the Bible fits this description. John 5:26 states, "for just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself." Only things that have a beginning need a cause and because we find God to be eternal and therefore unique, He demands no cause. In fact, He is the only thing or being that exists which requires no cause and is therefore transcendent to our contingent world of existence. From this we can conclude that He would by necessity have to exist and be eternal, transcendent, as well as powerful. "God is free from the succession of time." Psalms 90:2 says, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God."
But, could the universe be eternal as well? As in process theology, many modern thinkers today claim that God and the world are co-eternal. By accepting this presupposition one obviously denies the Creation. For anyone professing to be a Christian to believe such heresy is frightening. Scripture says in Genesis 1 that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The key here is that scripture says, "In the beginning God". If the world were co-eternal with God, how could He have created it? This would violate the law of non-contradiction. He would have to both exist before the world in order to create it and not exist before the world to be co-eternal with it at the same time.
Another scientific law of nature that supports the premise that the universe had a beginning is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or the law of entropy. Einstein said that of all the physical laws, this is the most obvious and provable. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is one of the best established and most fundamental of all natural laws. "Entropy can be understood in terms of energy, disorder, or information. The second law states that the entropy of the universe (or any isolated system therein, where an isolated system is one which has neither mass nor energy flow in or out of the system) is increasing. Put differently, the amount of energy available to do work is decreasing and becoming uniformly distributed. In other words, the universe is moving irreversibly toward a state of maximum disorder and minimum energy." From this we know that the energy in the universe is running down and that anything left to itself, given time, will breakdown and decay. Someone once asked, "what is it that destroys armies, kills kings, flattens mountains, lives forever and has no physical body?" The answer is time. Disorder never begets order. Only the contrary is true. Finite energy is becoming less available, and order is giving way to randomness. If it is running down, then it can not be self-sustaining, and if it is not self-sustaining, it must have had a beginning much the same way as a clock must be wound up before it can wind down. This is perhaps one of the best arguments for the universe having a beginning. In other words, with an infinite amount of time, if the universe were eternal, all the stars and suns would have burned out by now. If God is the cause, then He is both powerful and intelligent..
The "big bang" theory made possible by Albert Einstein's work in his Theory of Relativity is still another proof that the universe had a beginning and is fast becoming scientific dogma today. It says that all of the galaxies are moving away from one another at colossal speeds and slowing down at the same time. By tracing these movements backwards, scientists believe, that an enormous explosion occurred that ejected all matter away from a central point of high density matter. Put another way, "The hot big bang model says that the entire physical universe - all the matter and energy, and even the four dimensions of space and time - burst forth from a state of infinite, or near infinite, density, temperature, and pressure. The universe expanded from a volume very much smaller than the period at the end of this sentence, and it continues to expand." The radiation "echo" that seems to emanate from everything in space and the newly discovered "exotic matter" help to further corroborate this theory.
From the above arguments, we can conclude that the universe began and that God was the Creator. We can also conclude that the Creator is eternal, transcendent, intelligent, and powerful.
A third and powerful argument that reveals more about God is the teleological or argument from design. This employs Thomas Aquinas' argument of an orderly and purposeful universe. It could be stated this way: "Order and useful arrangement in a system imply intelligence and purpose in the organizing cause. The universe is characterized by order and useful arrangement; therefore, the universe has an intelligent and free cause." An example to illuminate this idea would be that we do not necessarily look for an intelligent cause when we see the erosion of the Grand Canyon, but when we see the faces of four presidents carved out of a mountain at Mt. Rushmore, we look for an intelligent cause. The major premise in the above syllogism is alluded to in Psalms 8:3, "When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, The moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained"; and Psalms19, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands"; and again in Psalms 94:9, "He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see?" The atheist may lament that order can come from disorder and organization may occur without design by the law of chance. However the dependent character of the laws of nature exclude this idea. It is divinely refuted by the law of entropy, yet we still cling to it because to accept any other view would demand a responsibility to the one that put it there. Given even a billion trillion years, would the faces of Mt. Rushmore just appear by chance? I think not.
This naturally leads us to the question; from where do natural laws come? The logical and rational conclusion is that "these laws are neither self-originating or self-sustaining; they presuppose a law giver and a law sustainer." Colossians 1:17 states, "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. In short they come from God.
The minor premise of the above syllogism is seldom found to be in question today. The further human knowledge develops, the more general revelation is expanded. Thousands or even hundreds of years ago, God's revelation could only be seen in the "macro" universe. "The structures and adaptations in the plant and animal world, including man, indicate order and design. Plants, animals, and man are so constructed that they can appropriate the necessary food, grow, and reproduce after their kind. The planets, asteroids, satellites, comets, meteors, and constellations of stars are all kept in their courses by the great centrifugal and centripetal forces in the universe." Sir Isaac Newton said, "this most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
A finely tuned universe is absolutely necessary to support life. Only very narrowly defined parameters of a planet, its moon, its star, and its galaxy can exist if one is to have the conditions necessary and sufficient to sustain life. As the number of parameters increase the probabilities decrease. Scientists have studied forty-three different parameters that are absolutely necessary for life on planet earth. From this they have stated that "with considerable security, we can draw the conclusion that much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars could possibly possess, without divine intervention, a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the observable universe contains less than a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred-billion stars, we can see that not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life. As mankind increases in knowledge, the harmony and complexity of design becomes even more fully understood. We can now see God's design in the microscopic and cellular levels and beyond to the atomic and subatomic fields. The interaction and compatibility of systems on this level is even more astonishing then on the macro level through which much of mankind has only been privileged to view. Dr. Kurt Wise Ph.D.. a geologist at Harvard University remarked, "the complexity and the integration of complexity in living organisms is stunning." For example, "the organic compounds in living organisms come in four groups: carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. These compounds exhibit a staggering complexity in their composition as well as a precise intricacy in their relationships with each other. DNA is an extremely complex molecule which contains a very specific arrangement of parts. When one realizes that the world exhibits such complexity and that at the same time this complexity can be expressed in simple terms, then this can be seen as evidence for an intelligent designer."
There are many types of design. There is the design of order, of purpose, of complexity and with that, an underlying simplicity. Design through our sense and cognition gives us information.
Recognizing the complexity of life and the difficulties in its formation, even in its most basic or elementary forms, leads us to utterly abandon the thought of its creation by random chance. The difficulties in the formation of proteins from amino acids are arduous enough, even when the experiments are altered in favor of creating them by using a pool of pure amino acids rather than what one would expect to find in a prebiotic soup. "The net result is that even 'contrived prebiotic' simulation experiments have produced chains of amino acids whose catalytic activity is trivial a best." One can conclude that the energy flow through the system can produce molecular building blocks, but is incapable of joining them in specific ways necessary to create biological function. "If a functional protein had one hundred active sights, the probability of getting a proper assembly would be .0125 multiplied times itself one hundred times, or 4.9 x 10191. Such improbabilities have led essentially all scientists who work in the field to reject random, accidental assembly or fortuitous good luck as an explanation for how life began." It is statistically impossible for even one functional protein to be made using this model. "The problems of prebiotic synthesis of DNA and RNA are even greater than for protein." The problem of creating both of these nucleic acids are so great that it is absolutely unthinkable by rational minds. "In concluding a review article, Dose (1988) comments regarding the synthesis of biopolymers such as DNA and RNA, 'The difficulties that must be overcome are at present beyond our imagination...'"
When scientists of the SETI (Study of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) program were asked what they look for in outerspace as a signal or sign of intelligence, they say a pattern - something that is not random. If one turns the telescope inside to the microscope that is exactly what one sees. You see design, order, and messages in the cells. You see intelligence. For example, the body is composed of some fifty-five trillion cells and all of them cooperate with each other. There is no such thing as a simple cell. As we look into the cell we see thousands of chemical reactions and tiny energy transfers all taking place at the same time. It has taken brilliant scientists a life time to plot all the different reactions. If even one transfer fails to occur the cell will either fail or die, but we don't see that, we see harmony.
"We can observe other relationships between the animate and the inanimate world. Light, air, heat, water, and soil are provided for the maintenance of plant and animal life. We can also see the general uniformity of the laws of nature, which allows man to plant and raise crops and to use his scientific discoveries in the advancement of human welfare." Acts 14:17 says, "and yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness." God is generous, benevolent, intelligent, purposeful, orderly, powerful and actively involved in our world.
What conclusions can we now draw from all of the above. First and most importantly is that God does, in fact, exist. From the arguments given we know that the universe had a beginning, beginnings need causes, and the only cause that makes sense is God, the God of the Bible. He not only exists, but He is infinite, the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." and Isaiah 41:4 says, "Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD--with the first of them and with the last--I am He." "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen." 1 Timothy 1:17
We can conclude that God is powerful. It is evident that any being that can create, "ex nihilo", out of nothing, must be a powerful being. The following passage is a locus classicus for God's discovery in general revelation. Romans 1:20 proclaims, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Jeremiah 32:17 declares, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, you have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you." "Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens? Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket, or weighed the mountains on the scales and the hills in a balance?" records Isaiah 40:12. Amos 4:13 shouts, "He who forms the mountains, creates the wind, and reveals his thoughts to man, he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth--the LORD God Almighty is His name."
God reveals His intelligence and wisdom by all that we see. Jeremiah 10:12 says, "But God made the earth by His power; He founded the world by His wisdom and stretched out the heavens by His understanding" Psalms 139:4 proclaims, "Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, Thou dost know it all," and Psalms 147:5 declares, "Great is our Lord, and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite."
And finally, from the Biblical context, God's goodness is evident to His creatures as recorded in Matthew 5:45 and Acts 14:17 where He provides the sun and the rain and the crops in their seasons. "God supplies those He loves with undeserved favors according to their needs and His character is shown by benevolence, mercy, and grace." In Exodus 33:19 God says, "I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion." He also says in Psalms 145:9 that " The Lord is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works."
A second locus of general revelation can also be observed from history. This may be more rightly included under the broader definition of God's providence. Since God is alive in the world and is moving toward certain goals, it is possible to detect His work in the events that take place in history, most particularly in the history of Israel. No other nation has been destroyed, scattered, and taken captive so many times and yet remained viable as a culture, race, and nation. Israel was scattered for hundreds of years all over the globe, persecuted to the point of death as in Nazi Germany, and still by the grace of God was able to come together again in 1948 and become a nation.
As we look back in history we see Israel as a small country that had little commerce with the rest of the world, yet was a spectacle to the whole world. Deuteronomy 28:10 says, "So all the peoples of the earth shall see that you are called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of you." When God threatened to destroy the nation in the wilderness because of its grievous sin, Moses appealed to Him to spare the people because of the way in which His honor would be involved in the destruction. Deuteronomy 9:28 explains, "Otherwise the land from which Thou didst bring us may say, Because the Lord was not able to bring them into the land which He had promised them and because He hated them He has brought them out to slay them in the wilderness." When Israel was faithful and obeyed God, they triumphed over seven nations of greater stature; but when they walked in their own ways, God gave them over to oppressing nations and to captivity in distant lands. When Israel departed from the Lord God, it had drought, plagues and war. When they repented and cried out to God, He sent them a deliverer and gave them victories over their enemies. This cycle is repeated many times in the Book of Judges. God has, in some sense, done this with the rest of the world through the process of judgment reflected by the rise and fall of world powers as nations. God has truly revealed Himself in all of Israel's past, not only to the nation, but through the nation to the rest of the world. From history we can ascertain that God is faithful and just.
Because history is less accessible to mankind than is natural revelation, one must consult historical records and second hand information in order to appreciate God's influence in and through history. From history then, we find God to exhibit His faithfulness by keeping His promises. He is also found to be persistent, in that he is long suffering and patient toward His people. Examples that reflect this in scripture are Numbers 23:19 where it says, "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" and 1 Thessalonians 5:24, "Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass." In Romans 2:4 it is written, "Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?"
The final locus of general revelation that I want to investigate is that of God's greatest earthly creation, man himself. "Sometimes God's general revelation is seen in the physical structure and mental capacities of man. It is, however, in the moral and spiritual qualities of man that God's character is best perceived."
Genesis 1:27 says, "and God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Since God chose to create man in His own image, it is only natural to believe that He wanted to establish a relationship with him and that the relationship between God and man was good. In Genesis 1:28 and following God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it... And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." But then sin entered through man's disobedience and rebellion and his relationship with God was changed in Genesis 3:6. From that moment in history, because of sin, man's ability to see clearly and to know God intimately was clouded. Our need for revelation became dramatically more evident because of our rebellion. The fall affected every aspect of our being including our perception of moral and spiritual reality. Sin renders us spiritually blind and ignorant of God. Romans1:18 says "for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.." Psalm 53:2,3 says "God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there is anyone who understands, who seeks after God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one."
Thomas Aquinas observed that we find in the world a gradation of values, that is, some more good than others. As such, the terms for them describe the varying degrees to which things approach the superlative standard (e.g. the most good or most true).
Therefore, something must exist that is the most good and most true. "Aquinas believed that whatever possesses a property more fully than anything else is the cause of that property in other things. Hence, there is some being that is the cause of the existence, goodness, and any other perfection of finite beings, and this being we call 'God'."
Humans make moral judgments of what "should" or "ought" to be done, that is, about what is right and what is wrong. Anytime we hear the words should or ought , we know a moral judgment is about to follow. They are prescriptive in nature as opposed to descriptive. "Universal experience of moral obligation, the sense of 'ought', and man's inability to fulfill the dictates of moral conscience cannot be adequately explained either in terms of disguised self-interest or of social conditioning. The existence of these objective moral values implies the existence of a transcendent Ground of values."
C.S. Lewis calls these values the "Law or Rule about Right and Wrong." Older thinkers used to call them the Law of Nature, but what they really meant was the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as falling stones are governed by the law of gravity, man also has his law, with one big difference. The stone could not choose whether to obey or disobey the law of gravity, but man does have a choice to obey or not obey his law of nature, i.e. moral "oughts."
Men and women all over the world have an idea that they ought to behave in a particular way. Some people say that the Law of Human Nature or of "decent behavior" known universally in the world is unsound because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities, but that is not true. They have had only slightly different moralities. If the former were true, one would find countries where people were admired for running away from battle, or where a man would feel proud to double-cross all his friends who had been kind to him. We could imagine a country where one plus one equaled three. Apparent moral differences often represent only a difference in perception of the facts of a circumstance, rather than a conflict in the values themselves. Men have differed about who one should be unselfish to, i.e. his own family or to friends or neighbors, but they have always agreed that selfishness is not an admirable quality. However, even though we know what we should do, we don't do it. We fail to practice the kind of behavior that we expect from other people.
If someone were to study mankind from the outside, he would only be able to observe what we actually did, not what we "should" have done. As formerly stated, moral law is about what we "should" have done or "ought" to have done. He would not be able to gain any inner knowledge from us by just observing what we did. In the same way, Lewis observes, if there is anything behind the observed facts of nature, we, by studying them from the outside can never hope to discover it. What we want to know is whether the universe is simply what it is or whether there is a power behind it that makes it what it is. "Since that power, if it exists, would be not one of the facts, but a reality which makes the facts, no mere observation of the facts can find it." There is only one case, he argues, in which we can know if there is anything more and that is in our own case. In our own case we find there is something more. The only way in which we can expect it to be manifested is inside us as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. This is exactly what we find in man, a conscience. It judges whether a proposed course of action or an attitude is in harmony with our moral standard and it urges us to do what is in harmony with that standard and to refrain from anything that is contrary to it. It is this conscience in man, this sense of right and wrong, that constitutes the revelation of God. It is not self-imposed as is evidenced by the fact that many times we try to extricate ourselves from it if we can.
It is the reflection of God in our souls. Just like the reflection of a mountain on the smooth surface of a lake reveals its existence, and to some extent its nature, so the conscience in man reveals both the existence of God and to some extent His nature. In other words, it reveals not only that He exists, but that He distinguishes between what is right and wrong, that He will always do what is right, and that He holds us responsible for doing what is right. There is also an implication that every transgression will be punished. Romans 2:14-16 proclaims,

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."

In our conscience, then, we have another revelation from God. Its prohibitions, commands, decisions and desires would have no meaning or authority over us if we did not feel that somehow in our conscience that God was real, that He was communicating reality to us. In other words, it reveals to us that there are indeed absolutes; Laws that dictate to our consciousness absolute right and wrong in the universe. Through this understanding of right and wrong, we can conclude there is a supreme lawgiver who captures these laws in His own personality and conduct. God is a perfectly moral being.
William Sorley argues that the theistic account of the natural and moral orders is the superior worldview. Moral values or ideals are an objective part of reality and reside in people. "The problem is that no finite person has ever fully realized all moral value. The moral ideal is nowhere fully actualized in the finite world....Therefore, if the moral ideal is to be valid for reality, it must be fully realized in an existent that is both personal and eternal, that is, God."
Some would argue that morals are subjective and individually intuitive. This, however, is a bankrupt moral worldview and there are serious flaws in its thinking. Greg Koukl offers the following eight moral intuitions regarding the latter view of subjectivism: 1) There could be no wrong doing. It would be impossible to criticize another person if morality is dependent upon the individual. Even Hitler could not be faulted for his actions because everyone does what is right in his own eyes. 2) There could be no evil because if evil is to exist there must be something that is inherently and objectively wrong. 3) There could be no blame or praise. It is rendered meaningless if there is no objective standard. 4) There could be no justice or fairness because these concepts dictate equal treatment and must be based on a common standard. 5) There would be no accountability because a person would only answer to himself. 6) There would be no moral improvement especially in society. Moral reform implies a preconceived standard exists. Some standard must exist to improve upon. 7) We could have no moral discourse. If all is relative, there can be no grounds of what is right and wrong in a discussion. 8) Finally, there would be no tolerance. The point of view that we must be tolerant of others dictates an absolute! They believe that what is right for one society is not necessarily right for others. All of the above intuitions follow for societies as well as for individuals, only on a higher level. With regard to cultures and times differing as to basic moral values, as previously stated, this is not true. The values are basically the same, only the perception and understanding of the facts are different.
We can conclude from the above that universal moral absolutes exist. Therefore, as stated, there must be a moral lawgiver, i.e. God. If we are not keeping His laws, we must be offending the moral lawgiver when we "blow it" (sin) and we feel guilty. Everyone feels true moral guilt. This is what makes moral relativism so attractive. If we can get rid of all the guilt and God, then there is no judgment. But if absolutism is true, then there is a God and we are guilty before Him and His laws and as a result we deserve judgment and we need a Savior. Individuals and society as a whole don't like this because they don't want to bend their knee to anyone. Man was created by God as a separate being, man did not emanate from God. Genesis 1:26 tells us that we are made in the image of God. "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Acts 17:29 says, "Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man." Knowing God is a moral being necessarily makes humans moral beings as well since we are created in His image.
We can also appreciate, somewhat historically, that general revelation can be found in man's religious nature. Among all peoples and tribes of the world there is a sense of the divine. Since this phenomenon is universal, it must belong to the very nature of man. And if man's nature leads to religious worship, this can only find it's explanation in a higher Being who has constituted man as a religious being. "While the exact nature of the belief and worship varies considerably from one religion to another, many see in the universal tendency toward worship of the holy the manifestation of a past knowledge of God, an internal sense of deity, which, although it may be marred and distorted, is nonetheless still present and operating in human experience." Pascal said, "that there is a heart shaped vacuum in the heart of every man that can only be filled with a relationship with God." This reveals still another aspect of God. That part of Him that desires to have a personal relationship with us.
General revelation does have limitations. First and most importantly, man cannot attain a personal, saving knowledge of God through general revelation. The following three verses allude to this. In 1 Corinthians 1:21 it says, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not {come to} know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe," and John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness of Me," and again in 2 Tim. 3:15 "and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Secondly, man naturally suppresses and perverts the truth presented to him in general revelation. Examples of these are found in Roman 1:18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness," and in Romans 1:25, "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever." The latter verse sounds very much like the New Agers and the Pantheists of today and for that matter much of the secular world!
General revelation can be compared with the Law given to Israel. The negative purpose of general revelation is to serve as a basis for God's universal condemnation of man. This can be found in the scriptures in Romans 1:18 - 3:20. Just as the Law brought Israel under condemnation, so does general revelation bring all of mankind under the same reprehension. Man is condemned by the light that he has unless that light is Christ as revealed in John 8:12, "Again therefore Jesus spoke to them, saying, 'I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of life.'" However the positive purpose of general revelation is that it can, through God's power, show man his need for God and incite him to search for more knowledge of God. This is revealed in Acts 17:24-29 where it says,

"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things; and He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined {their} appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His offspring.' Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man."

The fact that "General revelation, to be a vehicle of salvation, must insist that God is revealed sufficiently so as to restore the broken relationship with man.... but the essence of special revelation is the truth that God is not revealed unto salvation in general revelation...This much is perfectly evident: general revelation is totally insufficient as a vehicle for salvation." Philip Melanchthon held that natural knowledge of God is equivalent to law and so cannot save as I have already stated. The great philosophers, he said, "knew only the law, otherwise, no distinction would be possible between us and the heathen if God saved men without knowledge of Christ and without faith." Charles Hodge rejected various proposals about how saving knowledge may come without special revelation, and he also clearly opposed the notion that salvation is universally accessible when he stated, "The revelation of the plan of salvation is not made by the works or by the providence of God; nor by the moral constitution of our nature, nor by the intuitions or deductions of reason; nor by direct revelation to all men everywhere and at all times; but only in the written Word of God." And through that Word, the revelation of the man Jesus Christ and Him crucified. In John 14:6, Christ said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." This is not to say that general revelation doesn't have any teaching function, but rather that is has no salvific role. Bruce Demarest argues this intensively in his study on general revelation. "General revelation elicits the anxious interrogation, 'What shall I do to be saved?' It prompts the question and poses the difficulty, but it cannot provide the solution." But this does not imply that general revelation says nothing true about God or the human situation. Demarest goes on to say that there are spiritual truths about God and humanity unveiled in general revelation - just no saving truth.
All people pervert God's universal revelation and "the light they do possess is too fragmentary and distorted to illumine the path that leads to a saving knowledge of God." When man sinned he altered his relationship with God disallowing him any ability to see God's revelation and spiritual truths clearly. This is revealed in Romans 1:18 and 25. But even if he could see clearly, he would need special revelation from God in order to obtain saving faith and salvation. Acts 4:12 states clearly, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."
God however does respond positively to those who respond positively to Him. 1 Chronicles 28:9 give us an example, "As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your Father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever." Also Hebrews 11:6 says, "And without faith it is impossible to please {Him}, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and {that} He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."
If man is to be saved by faith, it must occur before death. There is no way to be evangelized after death occurs. Hebrews 9:27 says, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this {comes} judgment." Saving faith not only requires the hearing of knowledge (notitia), and the assent to that knowledge (assensus), but the appropriation and utilization of that faith (fiducia) in the lives of men and women.
As I have been alluding to, the question arises; Is there any possible way man can be saved by a response to general revelation apart from special revelation? Evidence usually cited for an answer in the affirmative is Romans 2:14-15 which says, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." However the law that is written in the hearts of the Gentiles is not perfectly obeyed by them. Romans 3: 9 -12 validates this,

"What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one. '"

And just because general revelation condemns, it doesn't necessarily follow that it can also save. For example, the law can and does condemn a person, but the law cannot and does not save a person since he cannot and does not keep it.
All who have been saved, even prior to the incarnation, have had special revelation. Abraham and Job are examples. They had special revelation directly from God Almighty when He spoke to them and in their unique relationship with Him. They received special revelation through conversations with God. Yet, even with this, their salvation was based upon the foundation of what Christ did on the cross of Calvary. For all sin requires justice and therefore punishment. Scripture says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." We must remember that God is just in condemning all men to eternal separation from Him, and it is only through His Grace that He chooses to save some of them. Ephesians 1:4-6 declares, "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." Romans 9:15 clearly says, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." Man is not in a righteous or morally neutral condition, but is worthy of divine judgment and does not deserve a chance from God to be saved even though God has provided one. Evidence for this is given in Romans 1:32 where it says, "and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them."
It is critical to remember that God is under no obligation to save anyone. There is just not enough information and knowledge about God in general revelation for men and women to be saved.
If someone is in an area so remote that they have never heard of Christ, they still have general revelation to condemn them. R.C. Sproul argues that "if a person in a remote area has never heard of Christ, he will not be punished for that. What he will be punished for is the rejection of the Father of whom he has heard (through general revelation) and for the disobedience to the law that is written in his heart." Carl Henry agrees, "no man who has never heard of Jesus Christ is condemned for rejecting Christ; all men are condemned for their revolt against the light that they do have.....Christ has an existence which antedates and is broader than His historical incarnation. He is the truth, and the source of all good... In a real sense, a man who has never heard the name of Christ rejects Him nonetheless, every time he sins against whatever light he has." Henry contends that every unevangelized person rejects Jesus Christ implicitly when he or she sins against truth.
In summary then, it is the belief of this writer that God is revealed in general revelation and like the Law it illuminates our short comings (our sin) by exposing a standard that is perfect and beyond our capacity to attain. Simply stated we understand that we are in trouble. Due to the conscience of man and his ability to think and reason, we realize inherently that there are certain moral standards to which we are obliged to conform. Even though we see God through a haze of sin, we can still have knowledge about Him - even though it is limited and distorted. "Regardless of whether anyone actually observes it, understands it, and believes it, it is nonetheless present....General revelation is not something read into nature by those who know God on other grounds; it is already present, by the creation and continuing providence of God." For general revelation to make any sense however, man must interpret what he sees and observes. This then is where we find "natural theology." Natural theology is human knowledge of God derived from God's divine natural revelation. It is solely dependent on divine revelation for its content and it is purely subjective. "Although natural theology deals with various matters concerning God and His properties, His will and His works, it does not, without a supernatural revelation of the word, teach us that understanding of God which can serve for salvation."
We humans know what is right from what is wrong, but we go our own way. We rebel against God's truth. "Thus it is apparent that in failing to respond to the light of general revelation which we have, men are fully responsible, for they have truly known God, but have willfully suppressed that truth. Thus in effect the general revelation serves, as does the law, merely to make guilty, not to make righteous."
Because God is just, He demands punishment for our rebellion. By His Mercy and Grace He provided the way of reconciliation between man and Himself through the cross. General revelation doesn't provide enough knowledge about God's plan of salvation. It is not a Grace experience. Special revelation is needed - a more full revelation of God's redemptive plan. When, however, we have those "pockets of agnosticism", relying on general revelation and the knowledge and evidence contained in it gives us the kind of information necessary to strengthen our faith. We can rely on the evidence that God has provided through self-disclosure in general revelation, to show Himself in what He has created, and to allow us to see His majesty, and in some limited sense, comprehend it.
However, the orthodox church has always believed that "God's Word is absolutely and simply necessary to humanity for salvation because the Word is the seed which causes rebirth (1 Peter 1:23; for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, {that is,} through the living and abiding word of God.), the lamp by which we are guided (Psalms 119:105; Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.), the food by which we are nourished (Hebrews 5:13; For everyone who partakes {only} of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.), and the foundation upon which we depend (Ephesians 2:20; having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone})." The orthodox church is correct. Simply put, without the special revelation of Christ, there is no salvation for mankind, and for that matter, no hope.

Understanding Inerrancy

Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be resolved in the accompaniment of an extended analysis of the Scripture concerning itself. The following is an attempt to define that analysis through the articles of the ICBI. (The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy)
It has been said that the word inerrancy is a shibboleth for Christian orthodoxy and the evangelical community. It provides a certain clarity to ones belief system and allows evangelicals to quickly discern how others view Scripture, i.e. do we share the same foundation with regard to the inspiration and the authority of Scripture?
In October of 1978 the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy met in Chicago. At its conclusion it issued a statement that included a preamble, short statement, and nineteen articles of affirmation and denial. Materials prepared and submitted to the meeting for consideration came from Drs. Edmund P. Clowney (the former President of Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, PA.), J. I. Packer (Professor of Systematic Theology at Regency College in Vancouver B.C.), and R.C. Sproul (chairman of Ligonier Ministries in Orlando, FL.). This information was discussed, reviewed, and edited by dozens of evangelical scholars in attendance from many evangelical denominations worldwide. A draft committee composed of Drs. Clowney, Geisler, Heohner, Hoke, Nicole, Packer, Radmacher, and Sproul labored to produce a document that would be acceptable to the vast majority of the participants. The document was left nearly as it was received with only minor editing and two hundred and forty of the two hundred and sixty-eight delegates became signatories to the nineteen articles. It is this document that will be the focus of this paper.
I will examine this document from the view of authority, revelation, and inspiration, all of which reflect on the doctrine of inerrancy. I will not examine all nineteen articles, only those pertinent to the discussion and purview of this paper. The articles are written both in affirmation and denial. The via negativa or the “way of negation” exhibited in the denial portion of the articles is crucial in understanding the exact intent and meaning of each.
In the past the church could get away with short concise definitions or statements to define its doctrine. It could talk about the infallibility of the Bible, the inerrancy of the Bible, the inspiration of the Bible, the verbal inspiration of the Bible, or the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. The church used these short hand phrases to capture a very complex doctrine, and in today’s theological milieu, these are found to be controversial and confusing to many scholars. In the last two hundred years so much criticism has surfaced in the Christian community by scholarship, that they have been found inadequate.
“The authority of Scripture means that all the words in Scripture are God’s words in such a way that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.”
The issue of authority is really what the Bible is all about. From where does the authority come for the Christian life? This authority is defined, at least in part, by what I “ought” to do or not do. However, when we use the word “ought” we are defining a moral imperative and the first question that is going to be asked is, who says? Who says I “ought” to tithe my money? Who says I “should” repent of my sins? Who says that Jesus was the Son of God? Who is it that is imposing obligations upon me? Who or what is it that has the ultimate authority to bind my conscience?
Historically the Christian Church has agreed that God has the right to bind the conscience, to issue commands such as “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not.” The question historically has been does any one else have the right to bind the conscience? Traditionally the Roman Catholic Church has maintained that it, as an institution, has the right as well. In fact this was, to a great degree, at the heart of the Reformation. In Aristotelian terms of form and matter, the matter, the stuff of the Reformation was Sola Fide, but the formal disputation was the authority of the Scripture, Sola Scriptura – by the Scriptures alone. Now the question is what by the Scriptures alone? At the Diet of Worms when Martin Luther was asked to recant of his teachings he answered, “Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant, for my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.” Luther was declaring Sola Scriptura, that the Scriptures alone had the right to bind the conscience. Martin Luther recognized even before the trial at Worms, in his disputations with Cajetan at Augsburg and Eck at Leipzig, that church councils made mistakes. Not only did the councils err, but the Pope did as well. Calvin said, “councils disagreed with councils…And there is no ground for anyone to murmur against me that of the two that disagree one is not legitimate.” Christians, in either case, at least believe that God, who is the supreme author of the universe, the Sovereign One, the Lord of the creation has the right to issue commands and to bind our conscience as the ultimate absolute authority.
Article I: Authority – “We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the church, tradition, or any other human source.”

This affirmation, at its roots, goes back to the Thesis that Martin Luther nailed to the bulletin board door at the Church of Wittenburg in October of 1517 and the events following. The Scripture and the Scripture alone has the authority to bind the conscience and impose obligations, ultimately. Why did Luther make the declaration at Worms? It wasn’t because he thought that the prophets, teachers, and apostles of the Bible, in and of themselves, had the authority to bind the conscience. It was because in the Bible he knew he was dealing with more than just the opinions and insights of Daniel or Peter or Paul, he was dealing with the Word of God. How else can God bind the conscience except by commands and how can He give commands except by verbal communication? The Protestant Church tacitly assumed in the sixteenth century that the Bible was the Word of God. The Bible cannot be proved to be God’s Word by appeal to a higher authority. The Bible is self-attesting. For if an appeal is to be made to some other authority, or to a higher authority, it relinquishes God’s Word as the highest authority to those things to which the appeal has been made. It must then be assumed that the thing to which the appeal was made is of higher authority than the Word of God.
Today however, this is very much in debate, i.e. whether the Scriptures are just from primitive men or whether they are, in fact, the Word of God.
In the days of the Reformation the Church of Rome and the churches that parted from it, ascribed Divine authority to Scripture. In spite of the fact that Roman Catholics and Protestants agreed on the principle of authority, they were not altogether agreed as to the nature of that authority.
The Roman Catholic Church has maintained that the Bible is the Word of God and thereby has the authority to bind the conscience, but according to them it isn’t the only authority. The church through its councils and traditions has the right to do the same. It claims after all that if it weren’t for the church we wouldn’t have the Bible. The liberal argument says that the church’s authority establishes the Bible’s authority. “It has been a continuous assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that since the church established the extent and scope of the New Testament and Old Testament canon, there is a certain sense in which the authority of the Bible is subordinate to and dependent upon the church’s approval.” It is principally these issues of the relationship of church and canon and multiple sources of special revelation that are considered in the first two articles of the convention. The church does have authority, but it does not have ultimate authority. Such was the fundamental contention of Martin Luther. These issues have an important effect on the doctrine of inerrancy because all men err.
The key word in the affirmation section of Article I is the word “received.” This word is of historical significance because in the church councils that considered the canon’s adoption, the Latin word recipimus was used. This word means, “we receive.” The councils received the books to be included in the canon and consequently did not create or establish them. “It is clear that the church was not declaring certain books to be authoritative by virtue of the church’s prior authority, but that the church was simply acknowledging the Word of God to be the Word of God.” By using this word recipimus, they were merely acknowledging and submitting to what they already regarded to be the Word of God. If there is any double meaning in the affirmation of Article I, it is removed and made clear in the denial.
The article does more than just answer the question of the authority of the Bible, it is also answers the question of where the authority originates. If the Scripture comes to me and I recognize it as the Word of God, does my recognition of it in any way add to the authority of it? No, I am merely submitting to the authority already vested in it. It is abundantly clear that the New Testament documents from the first century functioned as canonical literature. The internal evidences given in 1 Timothy 5:18 and 2 Peter 3:16 and the fact that the early church fathers and bishops were quoting from the Scriptures and from the apostles all demands we recognize that from the earliest days the church had a functioning, working, operating Bible.
Article II: Scripture and Tradition – “We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the church is subordinate to that of Scripture. We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.”

Article II reaffirms Article I and reinforces Martin Luther’s declaration that began the Reformation. From the church councils and from the Council of Trent, it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church has two sources of revelation. The Bible is one source and the Pope and church councils are another. A question that had to be dealt with by the ICBI is that there are other important written documents in the life of the church. For example creeds and confessions play an important role within certain denominational communities and they do have a normative authority within a particular Christian body of believers. However, it is and has been the position of the evangelical community that creeds and confessions are fallible. Therefore, even as Article II does recognize other written norms it boldly declares them to be subordinate and dependent upon the supreme written norm, which is the Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture has been called the “norm of norms, yet without norm.” This is not to say that as Christians we are not to submit ourselves to our own church confessions and other ecclesiastical bodies, but whatever the authorities are, they never carry with them the weight and authority of God Himself. All authority under heaven comes from and is dependent upon God Almighty. It is He alone who has the intrinsic authority or right to bind our consciences. It is that authority that we find in the pages of Scripture. This issue of authority is at the heart of any serious study of the Bible and inerrancy, but not for doctrine’s sake alone or because the church is interested in having a “paper Pope.”
The next three articles deal with the relationship of Scripture to revelation. They guard against a view that would decrease, lessen or change the nature of the Bible as God’s written revelation.
Article III defines the Scripture as written revelation and not merely a record of revelation or a witness to revelation, but revelation itself down to the very words and propositions.
Article III: Revelation – “We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God. We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.”

It seems this article was written to condemn “neo-orthodox” theology and to confirm that the Bible is objective written revelation. Revelation is defined as that which is revealed or communicated to us by an unveiling. It is that which would be hidden or obscured from us through the normal means of knowledge. Christianity is at its core a revealed religion. God must, in some sense, open His mouth and reveal to us through special revelation the information that He wants to make known to us and which would otherwise be hidden. “The revelation of the word of God to man is absolutely and simply necessary for Salvation.”
There has been considerable debate in the twentieth century regarding a dynamic view (as opposed to a static view) of Scripture led by Karl Barth and Emil Brunner. This view entertains the idea that “authority of Scripture is functioning in a dynamic relationship of Word and hearing of the Word,” i.e. in an event. They maintain that revelation only occurs when an inward, subjective existential event takes place in response to the reading of the Bible. It (Scripture) then literally becomes the Word of God in the event but is not in and of itself revelation. It is only a witness to revelation. They consider Christ to be the only true revelation and by reading the Scripture we encounter Him through the working of the Holy Spirit and thereby receive revelation through the event. Brunner called it “truth as encounter.” At the moment of the event, the Word becomes revelation. The question I want to ask is what is it when it’s not becoming? Is it true or not true? As a result of this thought, it has been called, in theological language, “event revelation” as opposed to “propositional revelation.” In this “event revelation” we, the readers, are left to interpret the meaning, significance, and the content of the event. The critic of inerrancy then argues that, yes, God did act in history. The Bible is indeed a record of the activity, but the interpretation of that activity is left to human fallible agents and they record their own experience, interpretation, and meaning of the event. This view opens up all doctrinal issues to subjectivity, revision, and reinterpretation. It throws the church into the middle of a theological crisis, which is exactly where we find ourselves today.
Christianity has historically believed in propositional revelation. It is propositional because it communicates a content, i.e. God’s Word, which may be understood by propositions. This is precisely what Article III is describing in its affirmation, i.e. it is revelation! The Bible itself is objectively verbal propositional revelation from God. The Bible is a witness to revelation, but it is not merely a witness. It interprets God’s activity in history through words.
The words “in its entirety” are important because they transmit the idea that the whole of Scripture is revelation, from cover to cover. This article rejects “degree inspiration or “partial inspiration” leaving only a plenary view intact.
The denial portion is self-explanatory and discounts human response as necessary for Scripture to be revelation. Whether or not I respond doesn’t alter the fact that it is revelation. “The Bible, then embodies truth that comes to us from beyond the scope of our own abilities. It comes from God Himself.”
Article IV: Human Language – “We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creaturliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God’s work of inspiration. “

One of the most notable attacks in the twentieth century on Biblical inerrancy is based on the limitations of human language.
Going back to the Reformation we find the doctrine of the “incomprehensibility of God” which means that none of us has the ability to have a total and exhaustive knowledge of God. The church recognized historically that there is an element about God that is different from us. He is higher than we are. He is transcendent. He is not to be identified with a human being. However, although God is different from man, he is not utterly different, and as Karl Barth said, “wholly other.” If God were really totally and utterly dissimilar, there would be no point of commonality or reference point for communication. From this theory of Barth’s came the “God talk” crises that said that all of our language about God is meaningless. Only languages that can be verified through our senses are meaningful. This is what Article IV is refuting. Though our language about God is never fully comprehensive and exhaustive in its ability to harness eternal truths, nevertheless, it is adequate to give us truth without falsehood. Although human language is limited it doesn’t necessarily follow that it must necessarily distort truth. Because of Divine Inspiration and superintendence of the Bible by the Holy Spirit, the writings of the Bible are free from the normal tendencies of fallen men to distort truth. We must remember that we were created in God’s image, the Imago Dei. There is, in fact, a point of contact between man and God. Therefore, communication is possible as it was built into creation. All language about God is anthropomorphic because we can not escape the boundaries of human language. We can’t escape its boundaries because we’re human. Humans speak anthropomorphically. Romans 3:4 says God is true though all men are liars, but though all men are liars it doesn’t necessarily follow that all men lie all the time or that all men always error. That would be an error of logical inference. We can conclude then, that human language is adequate as a vehicle for Divine revelation. The reason the church believes in the inerrancy of Scripture is not because they are betting on the odds of the brilliance and genius of the human authors, but because of inspiration. The Bible claims to be more than simple human opinion or activity, it claims Divine origin through human agency as seen in 1 Peter 1:21. It is because of the authors’ superintendence by the Holy Spirit that makes possible the church’s claim of inerrancy.
Article V: Progressive Revelation – “We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.”

This simply states that New Testament revelation is more full and complete than that of the Old Testament. New Testament revelation is complimentary to Old Testament revelation and never contradicts it. The affirmation simply says that all that has been revealed about God in the totality of the Bible is not found, for instance, in the book of Genesis.
The denial portion maintains the Scripture is without contradiction. The Bible is to be understood as the Old Testament giving light to the New Testament and visa versa. The two Testaments are complimentary. The New Testament builds upon the Old Testament.
With regard to new revelation, it doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is no longer at work or that He has stopped leading His people today. It does mean that since the close of the canon no new normative revelation has been given. What this means is that no revelation has been given that justifies inclusion in the canon of Holy Scripture since the first century and the death of the last apostle.
The following three articles need to be taken together from the ICBI document.
Article VI: Verbal Plenary Inspiration – “We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration. We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed by the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.”
Article VII: Inspiration – “We affirm that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of Divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us. We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.”
Article VIII: Human Authors – “We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared. We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.”

Charles Hodge said, “the infallibility and Divine authority of the Scriptures are due to the fact that they are the word of God; and they are the word of God because they were given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.”
Sometimes there is confusion about the word inspiration. We tend to think of inspired poetry or inspired artwork where the author or artist receives a flash of insight or creativity that makes the end result exceptional. When we talk Biblically about inspiration we are not referring to exalted states of human insight or consciousness. We are talking about a Divine operation. 2 Timothy 3:16 is a vital passage of Scripture that affirms the inspiration of the Bible. This passage affirms the Bible is the product of Divine inspiration and that the Holy Spirit’s work extends through the human writers to each section and word in the autographs. Although it is inspired down to the very words, as it says in Article VI, it denies the dictation theory of inspiration in Article VIII.
The issue of dictation has been a problem historically in the church. “In the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church did use the word dictante, meaning ‘dictating,’ with respect to the Spirit’s work in the giving of the ancient texts.” John Calvin also spoke of the authors of Scriptures as amanuenses or secretaries. Also there appear to be in Scripture some places where some form of dictation was evident such as the revelations given by God to the prophets, e.g. “Thus sayeth the Lord.” This theory is not borne out in Scripture because the authors literary styles, vocabulary choices, and personalities are evident. Historically the word “dictation” references the fact that inspiration shows some analogy to a man issuing a message that is put together by a secretary. The analogy points to the question of origin. The source of the Scriptural message is from God rather than from a human beginning. The source of Scripture is the mind of God.
The mode or method of inspiration is a mystery and is left that way in the Article VII. The classical definition is that inspiration is the superintendence of the Holy Spirit upon the individual authors so that they wrote and recorded without error the revelation of God to human kind in the words of the autographs.
Article VII amplifies Article VI. The human authors are referenced here as human instruments by which God’s Word comes to us. The Holy Scriptures have been called the Verbum Dei, the Word of God or even the Vox Dei, the voice of God. There is a human agency through which the Divine Word is communicated so that the end product is God’s.
The word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16 means literally “God breathed” out. It is a reference to God’s breathing out His word rather than breathing in some kind of effect upon human writers. Therefore, the term expiration is more accurate than the term inspiration with respect to the origin of Scripture. The ICBI document makes no pretense to define the “how” of Divine inspiration.
Article VIII refers to the human authors and their humanity. It clearly holds a denial that the authors were mechanistic or robot-like machines, mere automatons. Analysis of Scripture declares their different personalities and writing styles. What is overcome by superintendence is not their individuality, but rather their propensity to distort and record falsehood or error.
Articles IX through XII deal with the matter of greatest importance in the paper, inerrancy. Dr.Wayne Grudem of Trinity defines it by stating that “inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”
Article IX: Inerrancy – “We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the biblical authors were moved to speak and write. We deny that the finitude or falleness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.”

This article dictates that Scripture is true and trustworthy without being false, deceptive, or fraudulent in what it communicates. The Biblical authors were not omniscient. Though the writings were inspired, this doesn’t impart omniscience on the authors or discount that they themselves were fallible. The information they communicate is not totally comprehensive, but it is true and without error in what has been penned. John Calvin stated that the apostles “were sure and genuine scribes of the Holy Spirit, and their writings are therefore to be considered oracles of God.”
The denial has to do with man’s finite and fallen nature. The phrase “to err is human” is technically a false statement. One doesn’t have to error to be human. Karl Barth leveled the charge of Biblical docetism against the advocates of inerrancy claiming the authors would have lost their humanity in order to gain the characteristic of infallibility. This statement is patently false or we would have difficulty explaining Adam’s humanity before the fall and Christ’s humanity in the incarnation.
Article X: The Autographs – “We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained form available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.”

This article is self-explanatory. We know through the science of textual criticism that we have available to us in our translations ninety-nine percent of the text and one hundred percent of the doctrine. Though we do not possess the originals, we have such well-reconstructed translations and copies, and such great numbers of them, that we can say with certainty that our Bible faithfully represents the originals. It is well to note that no essential doctrine is in question or has been in doubt. If the original text is inerrant then we are under divine obligation to obey the text. On the contrary, if the original text were found to be errant then we would be under no moral obligation to submit to its teaching.
Article XI: Infallibility –“We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertion. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”

The definition for infallibility in this paper is the inability to err. It has to do with ability or the potential for error. It is essentially a stronger word than inerrancy. While inerrancy means without error (in actuality), infallibility means unable or incapable of error. It implies truthfulness and reliability of all matters that Scripture addresses.
Some theologians today maintain that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant. The denial argues against this as impossible. Using the above definitions it is impossible for something to be infallible and at the same time errant. To hold to this disjunction is an obvious contradiction. These two words are often used interchangeably but technically their meanings are different. Something that is fallible could theoretically be inerrant, but that which is infallible could not at the same time, or in any way, be errant.
Article XII: Inerrancy of the Whole – “We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypothesis about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.”

This article would be a good definition for the theological description of “full inerrancy” found in Erickson’s book Christian Theology. He states:
“that the Bible is completely true. While the Bible does not primarily aim to give scientific and historical data, such scientific and historical assertions as it does make are fully true. There is no essential difference between this position and absolute inerrancy in terms of their view of the religious/theological/spiritual message…Full inerrancy regards these references as phenomenal; that is, they are reported the way they appear to the human eye. They are not necessarily exact; rather, they are popular descriptions, often involving general references or approximations.”

Article XII declares clearly and plainly the inerrancy of sacred Scripture. In the affirmation, inerrancy is defined by the way of negation. It defines limitations or parameters that we cannot violate, i.e. inerrant Scripture must be free of “falsehood, fraud, and deceit.” The denial rejects those who would limit inerrancy or infallibility to a particular message, area, or part of the Bible. The limited inerrantists have tried diligently to separate doctrinal and theological issues from history but the effort is futile. For instance, how does one separate the historical event of the cross from the cosmic act of redemption? To do this would be a totally subjective endeavor with monumental theological consequences.
With regard to science, the second denial rejects science as having authority over Scripture. That is not to deny the importance of science or to say that science can not aid the church in understanding Scripture, but rather that it has a secondary position with regard to Holy Scripture. An example of how science did help the church interpret Scripture correctly is found in the dispute between geocentricity and heliocentricity during the Middle Ages. Galileo was condemned as a heretic for supporting heliocentricity. Upon later examination of overwhelming scientific evidence the church had to reexamine what Scripture really taught since there was no explicit teaching in Scripture of geocentricity. The entire belief by the church was based on Ecclesiastes 1:5, but it was discovered that Scripture was speaking in phenomenological language. The church corrected its earlier misinterpretation of God’s Word.
“It is simply a question of our using the increasing knowledge of physics or astronomy or biology or geology – whatever the science may be – to understand more perfectly what the Divine Author meant by the terms He caused the human authors to use when matters of this sort were being discussed.”

Therefore science can be helpful, but this does not give it the license to reinterpret Scripture capriciously or arbitrarily.
The last article to be included in this paper deals with truth, i.e. the real state of affairs.
Article XIII: Truth – “We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage and purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.”

All of the affirmations and denials of Article XIII correspond to and are in harmony with reality. Because the word inerrancy must be qualified, some critical scholars have moved to exclude it from our theological vocabulary, claiming it has “died the death of a thousand qualifications.” For those that see Scripture as God’s verbal plenary revelation, this word is a safeguard, a shibboleth against those who would attack the truthfulness of Scripture. Inerrancy speaks to the fact that the Bible does not violate its own principles and definition of truth.
“When we say that the truthfulness of Scripture ought to be evaluated according to its own standards that means that for Scripture to be true to its claim it must have an internal consistency compatible with the biblical concept of truth and that all the claims of the Bible must correspond with reality.”

The Scripture and inerrancy are not impaired by the occasional use of round numbers, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the accurate reporting of falsehoods, or the use of hyperbole. All of these literary devices are perfectly legitimate ways of honest communication and perfectly consistent with the Bible’s own view of truth. Different parallel accounts are not contradictory but rather complimentary. God, who speaks only truth, has inspired Holy Scripture in order to reveal Himself to the lost through His Son Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer, and Judge. The Bible is God’s witness to Himself.
All of Holy Scripture is God breathed and consequently without error in the autographa. Since it is all God breathed it is infallible and inerrant. Infallibility signifies that Scripture is unable to err and is neither misleading nor capable of being misled, thereby safeguarding that the Scripture is sure, safe, and reliable in all matters. Inerrancy signifies that the Scripture is free from all falsehood or mistakes, thereby safeguarding the truth of Scripture to be entirely accurate and trustworthy in all propositions down to the very words. In as much as Scripture is the product of a single Divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture, i.e. Scripture must interpret Scripture. We must consult all relevant passages on any given issue or doctrine to get the full council of God. The best theology is that which is in greatest harmony with all of Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correction, and training in righteousness.” (NIV) 1 John 2:20 says, “But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.” (NIV) As Christians we know the truth, i.e. all of Scripture is inerrant just as the internal evidence implies. It’s not a human product with God’s assistance, but rather God’s product through the writers as instruments. Martin Luther said simply this, “you are so to deal with the Scriptures that you bear in mind that God Himself is saying this.” Plainly stated, what the Bible says, God says to His everlasting Glory! Can God make a mistake? Can He err? Luther acknowledged the Scripture to be the Word of God and infallibly true when he said, “as the Word says, so it must come to pass, although all the world, mind and understanding, and all things are against it.”