Latest / Reformed Thinking / God's Universal Revelation

Transcript

God's Universal Revelation · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Imagine for a second that you are hiking in the middle of
• 0:03
  absolute nowhere. Right, like way off the grid.
• 0:06
  Yeah, miles from civilization. You are pushing through dense
• 0:09
  woods and suddenly you stumble upon a small wooden cabin.
• 0:13
  OK. I'm picturing it.
• 0:14
  You push the door open. There is no one inside, but the
• 0:18
  fireplace is crackling with fresh logs.
• 0:21
  A steaming cup of coffee sits on a hand carved table and a book
• 0:25
  lies open with a pair of reading glasses just resting on the
• 0:28
  page. So someone was clearly just
• 0:30
  there. Right.
• 0:31
  You cannot see another human being anywhere, but you know
• 0:34
  with absolute certainty that someone was there.
• 0:37
  The clues are well, they are screaming at you.
• 0:39
  Yeah, you are looking at the undeniable fingerprints of a
• 0:41
  mind. Yes, precisely.
• 0:44
  Welcome to Reformed thinking. Today we are bringing a massive
• 0:47
  question to you, the listener. How do we know a Creator exists?
• 0:51
  That is the big one. It really is.
• 0:54
  Are the clues hidden in the stars or scattered throughout
• 0:57
  human history, or are they strictly contained within the
• 0:59
  pages of sacred texts? And to get to the bottom of
• 1:03
  this, we're unpacking Miller J Erickson's theological breakdown
• 1:07
  of what scholars call general revelation versus special
• 1:11
  revelation. So our mission for this deep
• 1:14
  dive is to extract the core insights about how the physical
• 1:18
  universe and the human conscience communicate truth and
• 1:22
  you know, how that specific broadcast interacts with the
• 1:25
  claims of Scripture. The stakes here are remarkably
• 1:28
  high. I mean, they get to the absolute
• 1:30
  core of human reason. We are going to look at whether
• 1:32
  the human mind, operating entirely on its own hardware,
• 1:36
  can construct a complete, accurate theology of God.
• 1:39
  Which is a huge debate. Oh, absolutely.
• 1:41
  We will examine why some major historical figures believe that
• 1:44
  was entirely possible, and why other massive figures completely
• 1:47
  and utterly rejected the idea. And then we will try to see how
• 1:51
  a middle ground might be the most biblically faithful
• 1:53
  conclusion to draw from the source material.
• 1:56
  Right. This is all about understanding
• 1:58
  the very nature of how information from the divine
• 2:00
  actually reaches us. So just to lay down some ground
• 2:02
  rules for our conversation today, we are going to take
• 2:05
  distinct dedicated turns analyzing this material.
• 2:09
  Yeah, we want to make sure we are not just talking over one
• 2:12
  another so the concepts are laid out logically for you to follow
• 2:14
  along. OK, so before we can debate what
• 2:17
  we are supposed to do with the evidence of a creator, we really
• 2:21
  have to establish where this evidence actually resides.
• 2:24
  Right. Where is the signal coming from?
• 2:26
  Yeah, according to the theological framework we are
• 2:28
  examining, there are three specific locations of general
• 2:32
  revelation. Let us start with the 1st and I
• 2:34
  guess the most obvious location, which is nature.
• 2:37
  Yes, the first locus of general revelation is the physical
• 2:41
  cosmos itself. Just the universe around us.
• 2:43
  Precisely, the biblical claim found in text like Psalm 19 in
• 2:48
  Romans chapter 1 is that the physical universe is actively
• 2:51
  broadcasting a message. So it's not just sitting there
• 2:54
  quietly. No, not at all.
• 2:56
  This is not a passive existence, it's an active communication.
• 2:59
  I mean, Psalm 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God
• 3:02
  day after day, night after night, without ever stopping.
• 3:05
  It is like a universal language. It is.
• 3:08
  Think about the sheer scale of this.
• 3:10
  On the macro level, you have the breathtaking reality of a sunset
• 3:13
  or the incomprehensible vastness of the observable universe.
• 3:17
  Which points to a designer with unfathomable capability and
• 3:21
  wisdom. Exactly.
• 3:23
  But then you zoom all the way into the micro level, right?
• 3:26
  Like a biology student dissecting a complex Organism or
• 3:29
  a geneticist looking at the coding of DNA.
• 3:32
  They're looking at an intricate system of information.
• 3:35
  So the delicate balance of physical laws that allow matter
• 3:38
  to exist at all, it points toward a mind, yes.
• 3:41
  The creation is characterized by amazing variety and beauty,
• 3:45
  which functions as evidence of a highly capable creator.
• 3:48
  OK, that makes perfect sense to me.
• 3:50
  The physical world is loud, it is visual, it is mathematical,
• 3:53
  and it is right in our faces. It is hard to miss, yeah.
• 3:56
  But then the second location outlined by Ericsson is history.
• 3:59
  This one is a bit trickier. It really is.
• 4:01
  The argument is that God is moving the course of history and
• 4:04
  controlling the destinies of nations.
• 4:06
  The primary example cited in the text is the preservation of the
• 4:10
  people of Israel. Here is a a small nation that
• 4:12
  survived over many centuries, often completely surrounded by a
• 4:16
  hostile environment and facing severe opposition.
• 4:20
  And beyond that specific example, there is a reference to
• 4:23
  Acts 14 where Paul talks about God providing rain from heaven
• 4:27
  and crops in their seasons. Right.
• 4:29
  The ordinary, ongoing provision that sustains human societies.
• 4:33
  But I mean, honestly, looking at history feels entirely different
• 4:37
  than looking at a sunset or a strand of DNA.
• 4:40
  How so? Well, the sunset is objective.
• 4:42
  Everyone sees the sunset. History feels incredibly
• 4:45
  subjective. Yeah, history is significantly
• 4:47
  harder to read than nature. When you look at nature, you are
• 4:50
  engaging in direct observation. You are just looking at it.
• 4:53
  Right history, on the other hand, requires us to consult the
• 4:56
  historical record. You are relying on second hand
• 4:59
  materials, the reports of others, or perhaps you know your
• 5:02
  own limited segment of lived experience.
• 5:04
  Because our individual lifespan is so short.
• 5:06
  Exactly. It is difficult to detect the
• 5:09
  overarching pattern or trend of of historical events while we
• 5:13
  are actually living through them.
• 5:15
  It requires a wide angle lens to look back over centuries to see
• 5:19
  the providential preservation of a people group or the rhythmic
• 5:22
  provision of agricultural cycles.
• 5:24
  So it is evidence, but it is less immediate and less
• 5:28
  accessible than the physical environment.
• 5:30
  Yeah, people can debate historical causes all day long,
• 5:33
  whereas gravity is, well, it is rather indisputable.
• 5:36
  Right. And because history is so
• 5:37
  debatable, it pushes us toward the third location in the source
• 5:40
  material, which is humanity itself.
• 5:43
  Yes, specifically our moral and religious impulses.
• 5:46
  So we are not just talking about our physical anatomy here, but
• 5:49
  our internal constitution. This relies heavily on Paul's
• 5:52
  argument in Romans 2 about the law written on the heart.
• 5:55
  Yes, and this is perhaps the most intimate location of
• 5:58
  general revelation. Humans universally make moral
• 6:01
  judgments. We all do it.
• 6:02
  We do. We don't just have personal
• 6:04
  likes and dislikes, we have a concept of ought.
• 6:06
  Like I ought to do this or I ought not to do that.
• 6:08
  Exactly. We feel that we ought to do
• 6:11
  certain things even when those things are disadvantageous to
• 6:13
  our personal survival or our comfort.
• 6:16
  Which is strange from a purely survival standpoint.
• 6:18
  Very strange. The philosopher Immanuel Kant
• 6:21
  argued that this moral imperative, the shared internal
• 6:25
  sense of right and wrong, it logically requires the existence
• 6:29
  of a divine guarantor of values. So if morality is real and not
• 6:34
  just some evolutionary survival trick to keep the tribe
• 6:37
  functioning, there has to be a standard giver.
• 6:40
  Right. Furthermore, we see a universal
• 6:42
  human instinct across all cultures to worship something
• 6:46
  higher. Even if the practices vary
• 6:48
  wildly. Oh, they vary incredibly, yeah.
• 6:50
  But the tendency to worship the holy, it implies an internal
• 6:54
  sense of deity. It is a built in awareness that
• 6:56
  we are not the highest reality in the room.
• 6:59
  OK, think of it this way. Nature is a giant unavoidable
• 7:02
  billboard on the side of the highway you cannot drive past
• 7:05
  without seeing it. I like that.
• 7:07
  And history is a long winding trail of bread crumbs.
• 7:09
  You have to pay attention and track it over a long distance to
• 7:12
  see where it leads. And humanity is a built in
• 7:15
  internal compass. It is inside the vehicle with
• 7:18
  you constantly pulling your needle toward a true north of
• 7:22
  morality and worship. That is a great summary.
• 7:25
  These three locations work together to establish a highly
• 7:28
  specific worldview. The universe is not a neutral,
• 7:32
  silent void. It is an environment that is
• 7:35
  constantly, relentlessly transmitting data about its
• 7:39
  creator, the. Billboard, the bread crumbs and
• 7:41
  the compass are all generating a signal.
• 7:44
  Yes, a constant signal. So if the universe is constantly
• 7:46
  transmitting this data, we have to ask the natural follow up
• 7:49
  question. Does anyone actually hear it and
• 7:52
  interpret it correctly without having access to sacred
• 7:54
  writings? The classic question, right?
• 7:57
  This brings up a historical phenomenon sometimes called the
• 7:59
  Melchizedek factor or the Holy Pagan.
• 8:02
  Yes, the sources mention this. We see figures like Melchizedek,
• 8:05
  Cornelius, and Abimelech in the biblical narrative.
• 8:08
  These are individuals who appear to know God outside the bounds
• 8:12
  of traditional covenants or written scriptures.
• 8:14
  Right. I mean, Abraham actually offered
• 8:15
  tithes to Melchizedek, recognizing him as a priest of
• 8:18
  the true God. It makes you wonder if the
• 8:21
  general broadcast was entirely sufficient for them.
• 8:24
  Like did they just look at the sunset and figure it all out?
• 8:27
  It is a compelling idea, but when you really dissect these
• 8:30
  examples, you see their severe limitations.
• 8:33
  OK, unpack that. Well, take Melchizedek.
• 8:36
  We actually know very little about his background.
• 8:39
  He may well have received a direct, unrecorded communication
• 8:42
  from God. So we can't just assume he
• 8:44
  figured it out from nature. Right.
• 8:46
  And when we look at Cornelius in the book of Acts, he was a
• 8:49
  devout man who feared God. Sure, but he still explicitly
• 8:53
  needed the Apostle Peter to come and deliver a specific message
• 8:56
  to him in order to achieve salvation.
• 8:59
  Right, Peter had to bring the specific gospel.
• 9:01
  Exactly. And in the case of Abimelech, he
• 9:04
  received a dream from God. A dream is a direct particular
• 9:07
  communication so that. Places it firmly in the category
• 9:10
  of special revelation, not general revelation, that is.
• 9:13
  Exactly it. So these narratives do not
• 9:16
  actually prove that a person can reach a full saving knowledge of
• 9:19
  God based entirely on Sun's. That's history and internal
• 9:23
  conscience. But there is.
• 9:24
  Another fascinating narrative example in the sources.
• 9:27
  Let's look at Paul's speech to the Athenian philosophers on the
• 9:30
  Areopagus in Acts 17. Oh, this?
• 9:33
  Is a brilliant moment, it is. Paul walks into Athens, sees an
• 9:37
  altar dedicated to an unknown God and he uses it as his
• 9:40
  starting point. He even quotes their own Pagan
• 9:44
  poet who said we are his offspring, right?
• 9:47
  Paul establishes common ground by acknowledging that these
• 9:50
  philosophers without Jewish scripture had arrived at a
• 9:53
  partial spiritual truth. So.
• 9:55
  Is general revelation functioning like a lock and
• 9:58
  special revelation acts as the key?
• 10:00
  Or is general revelation just like an appetizer that makes you
• 10:03
  hungry for the main course? Well, both.
• 10:05
  Analogies have merit, but the lock and key model is highly
• 10:08
  accurate to what the source material presents.
• 10:11
  We can list precisely what can be known from the general data
• 10:13
  alone. OK, what?
• 10:14
  Is on the list from. Nature and conscience a person
• 10:17
  can deduce that God exists, is eternal, wise, powerful,
• 10:20
  righteous, and functions as a judge who holds standards of
• 10:23
  right and wrong that is a. Pretty substantial list it is.
• 10:27
  However, what is entirely missing from the general data is
• 10:30
  the mechanism of grace Oh. Wow.
• 10:33
  OK, Yeah. The general data tells you that
• 10:35
  you are guilty of breaking the moral law, but it does not tell
• 10:39
  you how to find forgiveness. It does not contain the
• 10:42
  specifics of the Gospel or the Incarnation, so.
• 10:44
  General revelation awakens a realization of guilt and divine
• 10:48
  majesty, but that realization is only finalized and resolved when
• 10:52
  special revelation arrives with the specific details of
• 10:56
  redemption. Precisely.
• 10:57
  It gives you the lock, but you absolutely need the key.
• 11:00
  OK. Because the natural world
• 11:02
  provides this baseline of data, some historical thinkers took an
• 11:06
  extremely optimistic view of human capability.
• 11:09
  We encounter a concept called natural theology.
• 11:11
  Yes, the. Extreme optimists, right?
• 11:13
  This is the belief that human reason is so sharp and the
• 11:16
  evidence in nature is so clear, that you could build an entire
• 11:19
  religious system using only this general data, no.
• 11:22
  Bible required. Exactly.
• 11:24
  You would not need to appeal to the Bible and you would not need
• 11:27
  the authority of the church. This system assumes 2 massive
• 11:30
  things. First, that nature is completely
• 11:33
  intact and undisturbed, and 2nd, that human logic is fully
• 11:37
  capable and completely unbiased. And the most.
• 11:40
  Outstanding example of this optimism in the history of the
• 11:43
  Church is Thomas Aquinas. Set the stage for Aquinas to.
• 11:47
  Understand Aquinas. You have to understand his
• 11:49
  context. In the 13th century, the church
• 11:52
  was increasingly coming into contact with Muslims, Jews, and
• 11:56
  Pagan philosophers, right? Aquinas realized that if you
• 11:59
  wanted to debate a Muslim or a Pagan, quoting the Christian
• 12:02
  Bible would accomplish nothing because they did not accept its
• 12:06
  authority. That makes.
• 12:06
  Sense it would be like trying to win an argument using a rule
• 12:09
  book the other person doesn't play by exactly.
• 12:11
  So he needed a neutral, rational arena.
• 12:15
  He believed he could prove certain core beliefs like the
• 12:18
  existence of God and the immortality of the soul using
• 12:21
  pure reason, establishing A baseline that all rational
• 12:25
  people would have to accept regardless of their religious
• 12:27
  background. OK.
• 12:29
  Let's walk through the major proofs Aquinas and others used.
• 12:32
  The cosmological argument is usually the first one brought up
• 12:35
  in the text, right? The.
• 12:36
  Argument from cause and effect the.
• 12:38
  Basic idea is that everything has a cause, but you cannot have
• 12:42
  an infinite chain of causes going backward forever.
• 12:45
  But I mean, we shouldn't just gloss over that.
• 12:48
  Why is an infinite regress considered philosophically
• 12:51
  impossible? Think about it like a train.
• 12:53
  OK, if you see a train car moving past you, you know it is
• 12:58
  being pulled by the car in front of it, and that car is pulled by
• 13:01
  the one in front of it. But you cannot have an
• 13:04
  infinitely long train of box cars with no engine.
• 13:07
  If there is no engine generating the original pulling force, none
• 13:11
  of the box cars would ever move, no matter how many of them there
• 13:14
  are. Oh, I.
• 13:15
  See, even if the chain is infinite without an engine there
• 13:18
  is no initial motion exactly. Aquinas applied this to
• 13:21
  existence itself. If everything in the universe
• 13:24
  only exists because something else caused it, there has to be
• 13:27
  an initial uncaused cause or an unmoved mover that generates
• 13:31
  existence without needing to be caused itself that.
• 13:34
  Is fascinating. Then you have the teleological
• 13:37
  argument which focuses on design, right?
• 13:40
  Looking at the purpose of things when we.
• 13:41
  See objects behaving with apparent purpose or order, like
• 13:46
  the precise orbit of planets. We recognize that rocks and gas
• 13:51
  cannot consciously plan their own behavior, no.
• 13:54
  They don't have minds, right? So the visible order points to
• 13:57
  an intelligent designer who intentionally structured things
• 14:00
  toward desirable ends. Yes, that.
• 14:02
  Is the teleological approach finally?
• 14:04
  There is the ontological argument famously formulated by
• 14:07
  Anselm, and this one is entirely different.
• 14:10
  It is not based on looking at the physical world at all, no.
• 14:13
  It is a pure thought exercise. Anselm.
• 14:15
  Argued that God is the greatest conceivable being.
• 14:18
  Since a being that actually exists in reality is greater
• 14:21
  than a being that only exists in our imagination, the greatest
• 14:24
  conceivable being must by definition, exist.
• 14:28
  It is a. Bit of a head scratcher it
• 14:29
  really. Is I have to push back on this
• 14:31
  one? If I imagine the greatest
• 14:33
  conceivable pizza, does that mean the pizza has to exist,
• 14:36
  that is? The exact objection A monk named
• 14:38
  Gonilo raised against Anselm in the 11th century.
• 14:41
  Wait. Really.
• 14:42
  Yes. He used the example of a perfect
• 14:44
  island instead of a pizza, but the logic is identical so.
• 14:48
  How did Anselm respond to the perfect island well?
• 14:51
  Anselm countered by clarifying that God is in a completely
• 14:54
  different category than islands or pizzas.
• 14:57
  An island or a pizza has contingent existence.
• 14:59
  It relies on dough or land mass or an ocean to exist.
• 15:03
  It could be added to or subtracted from.
• 15:06
  God by definition is a necessary being.
• 15:09
  His non existence is logically impossible if we define him
• 15:12
  correctly. It is a brilliant piece of
• 15:14
  mental gymnastics, but it shows the massive confidence these
• 15:18
  thinkers had in human reason. Let's.
• 15:20
  Test that confidence with an analogy.
• 15:22
  Natural theology is like trying to reverse engineer a highly
• 15:25
  complex smartphone you found in the dirt.
• 15:27
  OK, I'm with you. By studying the silicon chips,
• 15:29
  the battery optimization and the code, human reason can logically
• 15:33
  deduce that there is aceo of a very advanced tech company out
• 15:36
  there, right? But here is the rub.
• 15:38
  Does studying that smartphone actually prove the existence of
• 15:41
  the specific Christian God? Or does it just leave you with a
• 15:44
  generic first 'cause that? Analogy gets you halfway there,
• 15:48
  but it actually exposes the precise trap Aquinas fell into.
• 15:51
  How? So.
• 15:52
  Well, a smartphone implies ACEO, but it doesn't tell you if that
• 15:57
  CEO is a tyrant, A philanthropist, or if he even
• 16:00
  still works at the company. Natural theology leaves you with
• 16:03
  bear theism. I see it might.
• 16:06
  Prove a designer. But it takes an entirely
• 16:09
  different kind of argument to prove that this designer is the
• 16:12
  specific God of the Bible Plus. We have to look at the advanced
• 16:15
  critiques of these proofs in the source text.
• 16:17
  If we are using the physical world to prove God's character,
• 16:20
  we run into massive problems. We.
• 16:22
  Certainly do like. Evolutionary theory offers
• 16:24
  alternative explanations for apparent design, arguing for
• 16:28
  survival adaptation rather than top down intentionality right
• 16:32
  you also. Have process theology which
• 16:34
  questions the absolute necessity of a first 'cause what do they?
• 16:37
  Argue process. Theologians view the universe as
• 16:40
  dynamic rather than static. They see God more like a jazz
• 16:44
  musician improvising along with the universe rather than a
• 16:48
  classical composer who wrote all the sheet music at the beginning
• 16:51
  of time. Wow.
• 16:52
  That is a completely different paradigm.
• 16:54
  It is. But the most devastating
• 16:56
  critique of natural theology is the dysteeliological problem.
• 16:59
  The. Problem of evil, yes.
• 17:01
  The problem of evil and natural disasters.
• 17:04
  If you look at a world filled with earthquakes, diseases and
• 17:07
  suffering, and you use only that data to deduce the character the
• 17:11
  designer, you are in trouble, right?
• 17:13
  You might look at a tsunami and conclude that the designer is
• 17:16
  either limited in capability or not entirely good.
• 17:19
  Exactly. Human reason alone, looking at a
• 17:22
  broken world, cannot easily arrive at a perfectly good and
• 17:26
  omnipotent guy. So.
• 17:28
  Reacting to the massive overconfidence of natural
• 17:30
  theology, the historical timeline shifts to the 20th
• 17:34
  century, where a major thinker swings the pendulum to the
• 17:36
  absolute opposite extreme. Yes, we are.
• 17:39
  Moving from the extreme optimists to the extreme
• 17:41
  pessimists and the key. Figure here is Carl Barth to
• 17:44
  understand barth's total rejection of general revelation,
• 17:48
  we really have to look at his horrifying historical experience
• 17:51
  in 1914 and later in the 1930's. The historical.
• 17:54
  Context is crucial here. It is.
• 17:56
  Barth was educated under liberal theologians who relied heavily
• 17:59
  on natural theology. They believe God was revealing
• 18:02
  himself through human progress, human culture, and historical
• 18:06
  events, right. But then, according to the
• 18:08
  source material, in 1914, Birth was horrified when 93 prominent
• 18:13
  German intellectuals, including his own theology professors,
• 18:17
  publicly endorsed Kaiser Vilhelm's catastrophic war
• 18:20
  policy. And they?
• 18:21
  Justified it using theology. Yes, they.
• 18:23
  Justified it by claiming they saw God's hand in those specific
• 18:26
  historical events. This is.
• 18:27
  Chilling it is. And then two decades later, in
• 18:30
  the desperate economic climate of the 1930s, a major segment of
• 18:34
  a state church endorsed the rise of Adolf Hitler and the National
• 18:37
  Socialist Party, again viewing a political movement as God's way
• 18:41
  of working in history. So Barth.
• 18:43
  Realized with absolute clarity that looking for God in
• 18:46
  historical trends or human logic led to catastrophic,
• 18:50
  unimaginable evil. Right?
• 18:51
  Because. If you assume that your cultural
• 18:53
  progress or your political movement is a revelation from
• 18:55
  God, you can justify any atrocity.
• 18:58
  Exactly. So Barth took a hard line
• 19:00
  stance. He concluded that Revelation is
• 19:03
  entirely and exclusively redemptive.
• 19:06
  In his view, if you know God at all, you are saved by him.
• 19:10
  OK. Therefore, any knowledge of God
• 19:13
  outside of Jesus Christ is completely impossible.
• 19:15
  Let's unpack the. Mechanics of that why would
• 19:18
  natural knowledge of God be such a threat to him?
• 19:21
  Because if a human being could look at a tree or use their own
• 19:25
  logic to figure out God, then that human being would have
• 19:28
  contributed to their own salvation.
• 19:30
  They would have used their own intellectual horsepower to
• 19:32
  bridge the gap between humanity and the divine.
• 19:36
  Barth wanted to protect the absolute sovereignty of divine
• 19:38
  grace. He didn't.
• 19:39
  Want humans taking credit right he?
• 19:42
  Believed that recognizing any form of natural knowledge of God
• 19:45
  would eliminate the absolute need for Christ.
• 19:48
  He viewed natural theology as humanity attempting to build a
• 19:51
  philosophical tower of Babel to reach God on our terms, rather
• 19:54
  than waiting in humility for God to speak downward to us.
• 19:57
  But this? Created a massive problem for
• 19:59
  him regarding the biblical text. It certainly.
• 20:01
  Did how does? He handle passages like Psalm 19
• 20:04
  or Romans One which explicitly state that the heavens declare
• 20:08
  God's glory and that God's attributes are clearly seen in
• 20:11
  creation. Did he just ignore those
• 20:14
  chapters? He couldn't.
• 20:15
  Ignore them. So he had to creatively
• 20:16
  reinterpret them. He performed some rather
• 20:19
  stunning mental gymnastics. What did?
• 20:21
  He argue Barth. Argued that human beings are so
• 20:24
  terrified of the void we use our knowledge of the Bible to paint
• 20:27
  a face on the universe. He claimed that the people who
• 20:30
  see God in nature are only doing so because they already know God
• 20:35
  from special revelation so. They are reading it backward,
• 20:38
  yes. They are taking what they
• 20:40
  learned from Scripture and projecting it backward onto the
• 20:42
  physical world. For Barth, natural theology was
• 20:46
  just a psychological coping mechanism.
• 20:48
  I have to. Challenge Barth's logic there.
• 20:50
  Doesn't his view blatantly ignore what the text actually
• 20:53
  says? Well, let's hear.
• 20:54
  Your push back, OK. Imagine a band is playing loudly
• 20:57
  in a room and I put on heavy earmuffs because I strongly
• 20:59
  dislike the music. It doesn't mean the band stopped
• 21:02
  playing. The objective broadcast is still
• 21:04
  happening regardless of my ability or willingness to hear
• 21:06
  it. It seems like Barth is letting
• 21:09
  his valid historical trauma overwrite textual accuracy.
• 21:13
  He is bending the text to fit his fears.
• 21:15
  Your critique? Is spot on and it aligns with
• 21:17
  the textbook's assessment. Barth's desire to protect grace
• 21:21
  and prevent the Co option of the church by the state is
• 21:24
  completely understandable and historically validated.
• 21:26
  The trauma of his era was very real.
• 21:29
  Definitely. We impartially report that
• 21:32
  history to understand his motive, but his theological
• 21:35
  conclusion seems flawed. It is.
• 21:37
  Flawed Honoring special revelation does not require
• 21:40
  denying general revelation. The biblical text in Romans
• 21:43
  states that the witness in nature is objective.
• 21:46
  It is there whether we acknowledge it or not, so the.
• 21:48
  Billboard is still up on the highway, yes.
• 21:50
  By claiming that people are merely projecting their prior
• 21:52
  knowledge onto the cosmos, Barth's assumptions overwhelm
• 21:55
  the clear, straightforward teachings of the Psalms and the
• 21:58
  Apostle Paul. He overcorrected out of a noble
• 22:01
  fear. OK.
• 22:02
  So if Aquinas is overly optimistic about human reason
• 22:06
  and Barth is overly pessimistic about the cosmos, we clearly
• 22:10
  need a synthesis. We need a.
• 22:12
  Middle ground right A. Middle ground that respects both
• 22:14
  the physical evidence of the universe and the severe
• 22:17
  limitations of the human mind. This brings us to John Calvin
• 22:21
  and the Reformed view. This is.
• 22:23
  Where we find a really robust balance this framework?
• 22:26
  Suggests that general revelation is objective and real.
• 22:30
  The broadcast is live, the Billboard is on the highway.
• 22:33
  Yes. The Reformed view acknowledges
• 22:35
  that God has structured his truth into the very physical and
• 22:38
  moral fabric of the universe. OK.
• 22:41
  But why don't we automatically understand the broadcast?
• 22:43
  That is due to the double effect of sin.
• 22:46
  First, the created order itself is under a curse.
• 22:49
  The biblical narrative in Genesis describes thorns,
• 22:52
  thistles, and futility. So the.
• 22:53
  Physical world is spoiled. Yes, meaning the witness it
• 22:57
  provides is somewhat refracted and blurry.
• 22:59
  It is not the pristine environment it was originally
• 23:01
  intended to be. The disteleological problem we
• 23:04
  discussed earlier, the tsunamis and diseases, is a result of
• 23:07
  this curse. And what?
• 23:08
  Is the second effect second? And far more seriously, human
• 23:12
  minds are actively blinded by sin.
• 23:15
  Romans 1 describes human understanding as darkened.
• 23:19
  The receiver inside the human mind is broken this.
• 23:22
  Touches on the concept of total depravity, right?
• 23:24
  It does. It isn't just our actions that
• 23:26
  are flawed. Our intellectual faculties, our
• 23:28
  reasoning and our ability to process spiritual data are
• 23:32
  completely compromised to. Explain how this works.
• 23:35
  Calvin uses his famous spectacles of faith analogy.
• 23:38
  This is a. Classic Imagine.
• 23:40
  A person with terrible uncorrected vision looking out
• 23:43
  at a vast landscape. The mountains and the trees are
• 23:46
  objectively there, but to the observer everything thing is
• 23:49
  just a blurry, indistinguishable haze.
• 23:51
  They cannot make sense of it. Special revelation.
• 23:54
  The gospel message acts as a pair of highly tailored
• 23:57
  corrective glasses. When the Sinner puts on those
• 24:00
  spectacles through faith, their spiritual sight is suddenly
• 24:02
  cleared. They can now look at the exact
• 24:04
  same landscape and see distinctly what was objectively
• 24:07
  there the entire time. That is a.
• 24:08
  Brilliant way to frame it. Let me.
• 24:10
  Modernize the analogy for you, the listener.
• 24:12
  It is like looking at a dense, chaotic Magic Eye poster from
• 24:15
  the 1990s. Oh, I.
• 24:17
  Remember those right when you. Stare at the paper for normally
• 24:19
  it just looks like a mess of static noise and random colors,
• 24:22
  but the hidden 3D picture of a sailboat or a dolphin is
• 24:26
  objectively printed on the paper it is.
• 24:28
  Entirely there it is. There, but without the right
• 24:31
  visual focus, which represents faith and grace, you will never
• 24:35
  see it. Once you adjust your focus, the
• 24:38
  image suddenly pops out and you realize the design was right in
• 24:40
  front of you the whole time. I like that.
• 24:42
  Modernization. What is crucial to understand is
• 24:45
  that the grace changes the processor, not the picture.
• 24:50
  Oh. Say that again.
• 24:51
  That is good, the grace. Changes the processor, not the
• 24:54
  picture. Yeah, the poster doesn't change
• 24:56
  when you figure out how to look at it.
• 24:58
  The physical world doesn't alter its fundamental nature when you
• 25:01
  become a Christian, it just. Becomes clear.
• 25:02
  Exactly. Yeah.
• 25:03
  This view holds a theological tension perfectly.
• 25:07
  God is fully responsible for providing the evidence.
• 25:10
  He prints the Magic Eye poster. He paints the landscape.
• 25:13
  The evidence is robust and undeniable.
• 25:15
  But because. Of human corruption.
• 25:17
  We require God's specific grace to repair our receiver so we can
• 25:21
  process that data correctly. Yes.
• 25:23
  It avoids the arrogant optimism of natural theology while
• 25:27
  simultaneously avoiding the cynical pessimism of Bart's
• 25:30
  complete rejection. OK.
• 25:33
  But if Calvin is right and our internal receiver is completely
• 25:36
  broken by sin, that instantly creates a massive ethical
• 25:40
  dilemma for God. The fairness question, exactly.
• 25:43
  How is it fair to judge someone for failing to read a billboard?
• 25:46
  They literally cannot see. We have to look at the standard
• 25:49
  of human guilt and the fate of those who are entirely unreached
• 25:52
  by special revelation. The harsh.
• 25:54
  Reality laid out in Romans chapters one and two addresses
• 25:57
  this directly. General revelation provides
• 26:00
  enough raw data for any human to conclude that a powerful eternal
• 26:04
  God exists. OK.
• 26:05
  Furthermore, the internal moral law provides a standard of
• 26:08
  behavior. The problem is not the humans
• 26:10
  lack information. The problem is that humans
• 26:13
  universally fail to live up to the moral standard they
• 26:15
  possessed. They know.
• 26:16
  There is a right and wrong and they choose wrong.
• 26:18
  Exactly. Therefore, general revelation
• 26:22
  succeeds entirely in making humanity without excuse.
• 26:26
  It provides enough light to condemn, even if it does not
• 26:29
  provide enough specific light to save.
• 26:32
  The knowledge is actively suppressed.
• 26:34
  This brings. Up One of the most emotionally
• 26:36
  weighty scenarios in this theological framework, yes.
• 26:39
  The fate of the unreached What if someone?
• 26:42
  Out there, who has never seen a Bible or heard the name of
• 26:45
  Jesus, looks at the general revelation, feels the weight of
• 26:48
  their moral failure, and simply throws themselves on the mercy
• 26:52
  of this unknown God. It is a profound question to
• 26:55
  consider We. See Old Testament believers like
• 26:58
  Abraham or David who didn't know the specific historical details
• 27:02
  of Jesus incarnation and atonement.
• 27:04
  They despaired of their own righteousness and relied
• 27:06
  entirely on Divine Mercy. Could someone today do the same
• 27:10
  thing with the general broadcast the?
• 27:11
  Theological consensus handles this with extreme caution.
• 27:15
  There's an acknowledgement of a theoretical possibility A.
• 27:17
  Theoretical possibility, yes. God could, in theory, apply the
• 27:22
  atoning work of Christ to someone crying out to the God of
• 27:25
  nature, just as he did for Old Testament Saints.
• 27:28
  The mechanics of salvation, faith relying on Divine Mercy,
• 27:31
  would be the same. However, scripture remains
• 27:34
  remarkably silent on how many, if any, are actually saved this
• 27:39
  way. The overwhelming biblical
• 27:41
  mandate articulated clearly in Romans 10 is that humans
• 27:45
  actively and aggressively suppress the truth because.
• 27:48
  Humanity willfully rejects the light they have right.
• 27:51
  And because of that suppression, the preaching of special
• 27:54
  revelation, someone actually going and delivering the
• 27:56
  specific gospel message is presented as an absolute
• 27:59
  necessity. Here is.
• 28:00
  A hard pushback, though, that's OK.
• 28:02
  Let's hear it if there. Is even a fractional tiny chance
• 28:05
  that someone could be saved purely by responding to general
• 28:08
  revelation? Doesn't that completely kill the
• 28:11
  motivation for global missionary work?
• 28:13
  I mean, why cross oceans and risk lives to translate texts if
• 28:16
  the stars and the conscience could potentially do the job,
• 28:19
  that is. A pragmatic argument, not a
• 28:21
  biblical 1. Fair enough.
• 28:22
  As rigorous thinkers, we must build our conclusions on what is
• 28:25
  demonstrably true in the text, not on what is most useful for
• 28:29
  generating motivation. If we believe a concept is true,
• 28:33
  we must hold it regardless of the implications for our
• 28:36
  organizational strategies. That has a very.
• 28:38
  Solid point furthermore. The reality of human suppression
• 28:42
  actually increases urgency because people are willfully
• 28:45
  suppressing the general truth. They are in immediate danger.
• 28:49
  Taking the specific, clear truth of special revelation to them
• 28:53
  remains a highly urgent rescue mission.
• 28:55
  OK. Moving from high level
• 28:57
  theoretical theology, we need to bring this down to the ground
• 28:59
  level. Why does this framework of
• 29:00
  general and special revelation matter for you in the real world
• 29:03
  today? We need to.
• 29:04
  Look at the practical implications.
• 29:06
  Let's do that. The first major take away is the
• 29:08
  concept of common ground. Because general revelation
• 29:12
  exists, we have a starting point with every single person on
• 29:15
  earth. We do not have to start
• 29:17
  conversations from absolute 0, right?
• 29:20
  Every person possesses an innate, even if suppressed,
• 29:23
  knowledge of God and morality. When you engage with someone who
• 29:27
  completely rejects sacred texts, you are not speaking to a blank
• 29:31
  slate. There is.
• 29:32
  Already something there, yes. There are areas of moral
• 29:34
  sensitivity and awe of nature or an internal recognition of
• 29:38
  justice that you can appeal to. It means you can tailor your
• 29:41
  conversation. You don't have to present a
• 29:44
  rigid, purely dogmatic monologue.
• 29:47
  You can connect with the specific features of creation or
• 29:50
  human experience that resonate with them.
• 29:52
  Think. About public policy in a
• 29:53
  pluralistic society like the United States, that is a.
• 29:56
  Great application in a. Society with the separation of
• 29:59
  church and state. You cannot walk into a
• 30:02
  legislative debate about ethics like the value of human life or
• 30:06
  the definition of justice and simply demand that everyone
• 30:08
  except church dogma. You will be ignored, absolutely.
• 30:11
  Ignored. But because of from general
• 30:13
  revelation, you can argue from biology, from logic, from
• 30:16
  sociology, and from reason you can advocate for moral outcomes
• 30:20
  using the universal language of the created order it.
• 30:23
  Creates a bridge. Furthermore, this framework
• 30:25
  establishes a remarkable harmony between science and faith.
• 30:29
  Oh, I. Love this point, science.
• 30:30
  Is, in its purest form, the rigorous methodical study of
• 30:34
  general revelation. When an unbelieving physicist
• 30:38
  discovers a new law of thermodynamics, or a secular
• 30:41
  biologist maps a genetic sequence, they are uncovering
• 30:44
  truth. And truth arrived at, apart from
• 30:46
  special revelation, is still God's truth, yes.
• 30:49
  Knowledge is not an invention, it is an uncovery of the
• 30:52
  structure that was already placed there.
• 30:54
  So. General revelation is the shared
• 30:56
  language that allows everyone to sit at the exact same table and
• 31:00
  debate the same reality. Exactly.
• 31:02
  We might bring completely different worldviews, different
• 31:04
  sacred texts, or no texts at all to that table, but we are all
• 31:08
  looking at the same physical laws and experiencing the same
• 31:11
  internal moral impulses. The synthesis of these ideas
• 31:15
  creates A worldview that is highly rigorous but also
• 31:17
  intellectually humble. It recognizes the vastness of
• 31:21
  the universe's broadcast, the severe limitations of human
• 31:24
  logic when clouded by self-interest, and the absolute
• 31:27
  necessity of divine grace to clarify our vision we have.
• 31:30
  Covered a vast amount of ground today we mapped out the
• 31:33
  locations of general revelation in nature, history, and the
• 31:37
  human conscience we. Examined the overreach of
• 31:40
  natural theology with Thomas Aquinas, attempting to build a
• 31:43
  system purely on reason. We.
• 31:45
  Looked at Karl Barth's total rejection of the concept out of
• 31:49
  fear of historical manipulation and we landed on.
• 31:52
  Calvin's brilliant spectacles of faith, acknowledging the
• 31:55
  objective broadcast of the universe while recognizing our
• 31:58
  need for grace to see it clearly.
• 32:01
  To leave you with a final thought to Mull over if all
• 32:04
  truth is indeed God's truth, consider the secular media you
• 32:08
  consume or the natural sciences you study in a new light.
• 32:11
  OK, what? Do you mean well?
• 32:12
  If a non religious scientist discovers a brilliant new law of
• 32:15
  physics, or an unbelieving artist produces A genuinely
• 32:18
  beautiful piece of music that moves you to tears, are they
• 32:21
  unknowingly translating a small piece of the creator's general
• 32:25
  revelation? They might not know the source
• 32:28
  of the beauty or the order they are capturing, but they are
• 32:31
  capturing it nonetheless. How does viewing the entire
• 32:34
  world as a canvas of divine clues alter the way you will
• 32:39
  walk outside and look at the sky tomorrow?
• 32:41
  If the. Universe is a cabin in the
• 32:42
  woods. The fire is lit, the coffee is
• 32:44
  hot, and the clues are everywhere.
• 32:46
  You just have to know how to look for them.
• 32:47
  Thank you for joining us. A deep dive on reformed
• 32:50
  thinking.