Belgic Confession, Article II: By What Means God is Made Known Unto Us
We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Romans 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation. (BC, Article II)
Today we will look at Article II of the Belgic Confession. This article deals with the question of how and through what means is God made known to us? When we looked at Article I of the confession, it was mentioned that when it comes to the existence of God, there are basically five camps everyone falls into: Theism, Deism, Pantheism, Agnosticism, and Atheism. The first three acknowledge the existence of ‘God’ in one form or another. The last two are, what I consider to be, the neutral and negative response to the existence of God.
Atheism can come in two main flavors. There is the practical atheist. The practical atheist lives his or her life as if there is no God. This person may or may not assent to the philosophical belief of the non-existence of God, but their life is lived as if God actually did not exist. If pressed, the practical atheist may give lip service to God’s existence (i.e., a deistic belief in God), or may claim that we just don’t know whether or not God exists (i.e., agnosticism, which we will explain in a moment), but their lifestyle belies their philosophical position. The second flavor of atheist is the dogmatic atheist. This is the person whose philosophical beliefs are consistent with their lifestyle, who actively engages in demonstrating the absurdity of the theistic position, and who makes the ‘positive’ assertion that there is, in fact, no God.
Let’s take a look at agnosticism. The etymology of the word ‘agnostic’ comes from the Greek language by taking the Greek word for ‘knowledge’ (Gnosis) and adding the negative prefix a. Therefore, quite literally, an agnostic is one who claims we just don’t know whether or not God actually exists. Some agnostics, as was discussed in the previous paragraph, are practical atheists. They claim there isn’t enough evidence to definitively determine God’s existence, so they live their lives as if he didn’t exist. However, there are other agnostics who are a little more intellectually honest. Their standard of proof is scientific verifiability. They assert that since God cannot be verified scientifically, one cannot dogmatically assert that he exists. In this view, science becomes the ultimate arbiter of what is, or is not, true.
Now I’m a big fan of science. In my under-graduate days, I wanted to major in mathematics and physics (still not quite sure how I ended up a philosophy major, but that’s another story for another day). Science has greatly improved our standard of living. Due to its scientific achievements, Western Civilization has dominated the world for centuries. However, science does not, and cannot, answer all questions. Science is not the final arbiter of truth because science does not have a monopoly on truth. Scientific truth is based largely on empirical evidence. In other words, for something to be true, it must be observable through the five senses. This is what scientists call verifiability. Another important factor in the pursuit of scientific truth is repeatability. This means given the same set of initial conditions, the same results will ensue. These two hallmarks of science, verifiability and repeatability, form the backbone of scientific truth. It is on the basis of these two pillars that God’s existence is either doubted or outright denied.
As mentioned earlier, science does not hold a monopoly on truth. Another way of saying this is not all truth is scientific truth. There is logical truth. Logical arguments in which the conclusions necessarily follow from the premises is a form of truth[1]. There is mathematical truth, which is essentially a form of logical truth. Another arena for truth is pragmatic truth. You see this a lot in the political sphere where ‘true’ is ‘what works.’ Another oft-overlooked area of truth is historical truth. None of these examples of truth fit within the scientific definition of truth for one reason or another; that doesn’t negate the value of these areas of knowledge. The bottom line is just because a field of study deals neither with observable phenomenon (in the case of logical or mathematical truth), nor verifiable phenomenon (in the case of historical truth), doesn’t mean there is no truth to be found.
A field of study that has gone through some hard times is theology. I submit that theology is a viable field of study in which valid truth claims can be found. While theology utilizes logic, history, and even science to validate many of its truth claims, the primary basis for theological truth is revelation. One of the first areas of study within theology is what is called theology proper. Theology proper deals with what can be known about God. Whereas atheism dogmatically asserts there is no God and agnosticism reserves judgment on the existence of God, theology (in particular Christian theology) makes the positive claim that God does indeed exist and that he is knowable. That is the essence of the second article of the Belgic Confession. The first article confesses the existence of God and enumerates some of the divine attributes. The second article seeks to ascertain how it is that we know what we know about God. Theology teaches that God is known through two means: General Revelation and Special Revelation. We will look at how the Confession details this.
The first clause of article II confesses that we know God “First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Romans 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse.” This is what theologians call general revelation. Forget the Bible, and forget prophets who proclaim “Thus saith the Lord.” God is knowable through observation and reason.
There are four classical arguments for the existence of God. They are:
- The Ontological Argument
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Argument
- The Teleological Argument
Each of these arguments seeks to demonstrate the existence of God without reference to the Bible. Let’s look briefly at each one of them.
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God: This is a purely rational argument (rational in the sense that it only employs logical reasoning to reach its conclusion). This argument, popularized by St. Anselm of Canterbury, argues from the basis of necessary and contingent being. The first premise is a definition of God as “that being of which none greater can be conceived.” The second premise essentially asserts that it is greater to exist in reality than solely in the mind. If God (as defined in the first premise) only exists in the mind, then he is not that being of which none greater can be conceived because he does not exist in reality. Therefore, God must necessarily exist. All in all, this is not the strongest argument for God’s existence, but it does attempt to prove his existence through a priori argumentation.
The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Whereas the ontological argument is a deductive argument (from general to specific), the cosmological argument is an inductive (from specific to general) argument. This argument is based on the law of cause and effect. Basically, the law of cause and effect states that every effect must have an antecedent cause. The world and everything in it represents a giant effect. Based on the law of cause and effect, the world must have an antecedent cause (i.e., something which brought into being). Since logic refutes both the concept that something can come from nothing and the idea of an infinite regression of antecedent causes, there must be a primary, or first, cause for the existence of the world. That cause is God[2]. This, I feel, is a stronger argument than the ontological argument.
The Moral Argument for the Existence of God. This is another inductive argument that argues on the basis on conscience. Humanity in general has an innate sense of right and wrong. This is clearly evident in the laws that various societies have established throughout human history; many of which share a lot in common (e.g., prohibitions against murder, theft, lying, etc.). This innate sense of conscience must have originated from somewhere; it could not have simply evolved on its own. The conclusion is that our innate sense of morality must come from a Moral Lawgiver, whom we call God. This argument also has a lot of merit. It doesn’t have the logical strength of the cosmological argument, but it is a good supplementary argument.
The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God. The fourth and final argument for the existence of God is the teleological argument. This is the argument from design (Telos is the Greek word for “end”). As we witness the order inherent in the universe (e.g., the motion of all objects governed by specific physical laws that allow us to make predictions), the conclusion that is drawn is that the universe must have been ordered by a Grand Designer, whom we call God. Strong evidence that supports this hypothesis is what is called the Anthropic Principle. The anthropic principle suggests that the earth is fine tuned for the biological life we see on this planet. Things such as the precise distance from the sun, the size and type of sun we have, the tilt of the earth, the size, distance and orbit of the moon, and a host of other parameters make this planet perfectly suitable for life. The margin of error in these parameters is such that even the minutest change in them would render life impossible on this planet. Essentially, design implies a designer; order implies an arranger, etc. To assert that what we see in the universe could have happened through time and chance strains credulity. As the old analogy goes, how long would it take a monkey hitting random keys on a typewriter to produce a work of Shakespeare? The teleological argument is another strong inductive argument for the existence of God.
When taken all together, these four arguments propose a God who is: 1) a necessarily existent Being; 2) the Creator of all things, who himself is uncreated; 3) the Moral Lawgiver; 4) the Grand Architect of the universe. While none of these arguments provide ironclad, beyond the shadow of doubt proof of God’s existence, they do show that through unaided reason and empirical evidence we can demonstrate the rationality of God’s existence. Furthermore, they are enough to leave us without excuse (Romans 1:20); to argue against the existence of God is unreasonable.
The problem we have is this is the limit of general revelation. We can prove no more than what we proved through unaided reason. As the Apostle Paul says, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.” We can know that God exists and we can know that he wise and powerful, but we know nothing of his love, grace and mercy through general revelation. For that we need special revelation.
That is the point of the second clause of Article II: Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation. Articles III through VII of the Confession deal in much more detail with special revelation, so we will address the subject of special revelation as we discuss those articles.
In general what the second clause of Article II is saying is that if we’re going to know anything about God beyond what unaided reason can declare, God is going to have to condescend to reveal it to us. That is why divine revelation is called ’special’ revelation. General revelation essentially describes God’s effects. Special revelation describes God himself! There are limits to special revelation, and these limits are due to out finitude, not God. For example, a PhD level physicist cannot fully explain the intricacies of quantum mechanics to a six year old. The reason being is the six year old is limited in his capacity to comprehend the concepts. Similarly because we’re finite beings, there are limitations to how much we can comprehend the revelation of an infinite God.
Yet, the fact that God chose to reveal himself to us more fully is a testament to his love and grace. This Grand Architect of the universe decided to introduce himself to us; to reveal himself as a God of love, grace and mercy. Any king who would condescend to allow his subjects to know more about him would be considered gracious; how much more so God?
As with everything God does, there is a purpose in special revelation. God is not just saying “How you doin’?” Divine, or special, revelation (i.e., the Bible) is a story of divine redemption and rescue. Special revelation is not only God revealing himself so that we can know how best to live, but also to reveal his provision for our salvation. That is something that will be made clearer as we move along through the Confession.
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
[1] Technically, an argument in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises is called valid. A valid argument is considered sound if the premises are actually true.
[2] It is important to note that God himself is not an effect that requires an antecedent cause. Logic dictates that there be an ‘Uncaused First Cause’ (or an ‘Unmoved Mover’ to borrow Aristotle’s terminology).
What you're saying