A few weeks I go I posted “David’s Moon objection to Van Til in his Master’s Thesis “Reforming Virtue””
I thought I add to that with a short post. In particular I want to deal with those who say Van Til does not believe in the clarity/perspicuity of natural revelation.
ON page 7 of Cornelius Van Til’s book The Doctrine of Scripture there’s actually a section that said “The Perspicuity of Natural Revelation.” The section title reveals he believes in perspicuity of natural revelation.
Van Til on the same page said:
Finally we turn to the perspicuity of nature which corresponds to the perspicuity of Scripture.
On page 8 he adds:
Created man may see clearly what is revealed clearly even if he cannot see exhaustively. Man does not need to know exhaustively in order to know truly and certainly.
…
We have seen that since the fall of man God’s curse rese upon nature. This has brought great complexity into the picture. All this, however, in no way detracts from the historical and objective perspicuity of nature.
It is clear Van Til believed general revelation is clear and is truly revelational about God. Van Til even went so far as to say on page 9:
Even when man, as it were, takes out his own eyes, this act itself turns revelational in his wicked hands, testifying to him that his sin is a sin against the light that lighteth every man coming into the world.
Yet Van Til did not under general revelation in the way as other school of apologetics. Van Til thinks there is a deep inter-dependence between the two types of revelation about God, General Revelation and Special Revelation (Special Revelation being God’s Word).
Van Til said on page 7:
We have stressed the fact that God’s revelation in nature was from the outset of history meant to be taken conjointly with God’s supernatural communication.
Don’t forget the world was created by God’s Word.
Even when there was creation and before the Fall God spoke to Adam and helped Adam and Eve interpret nature (the domain of general revelation).
We don’t want to create a false either/or dichotomy pitting general revelation against special revelation when there’s an organic unity.
The two revelation of course serves different purpose. Realizing the two different purpose of God’s revelation helps us to understand how they can be both sufficient:
At every stage in history God’s revelation in nature is sufficient for the purpose it was meant to serve, that of being the playground for the process of differentiation between those who would and those who would not serve God. (Page 7)
General revelation is sufficient to leave one culpable to know that God exists (see Romans 1:18ff and Psalm 19:1-6). Yet it was never assume to be a revelation that’s in a vacuum divorced from Special Revelation.
The Domain for Truth 
I’m gradually learning about the details of Van Til thanks to you.
Thanks for reading and learning along with us! How’s the weather for you all today? It snowed here yesterday but it wasn’t strong according to the natives! But its new for us!
Enjoy the snow!
It’s 33F and snowing slightly in ROC. I’m looking forward to the 45F heat wave predicted for Thursday and Friday. I was contemplating re-taking up cross-country skiing this winter, but we’ve had little snow compared to our normal 8 feet.
Thanks brother, I am learning a lot. Today’s word of the day is now perspicuity. 😇
Blessings!
Aww awesome to hear that! Blessings to you and have a great day!
I had to read Van Til’s “Nature and Scripture” and he clearly states the perspicuity of nature. Van Til is not an easy read so perhaps that author was confused, but to say that Van Til rejects the clarity of natural revelation is false. I am SO thankful for all that you do to teach people about Van Til!
Have you read Gerald Bray’s book on “The Doctrine of God?”
Thanks for the feedback and your own reading of Van Til’s essay! I have not read Gerald Bray’s book…I don’t know much about him actually. How is it???? Now I’m curious!!
Let’s say I would rather read Frame. I do NOT understand why none of my courses have assigned any of Frame’s books as our main text book!
It is informative in a concise manner, I will send you a copy if you want!!!!
Learning and adding words for my grasp. In theology, general revelation, or natural revelation, refers to God’s revelation “made to all men everywhere”, discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe), philosophy, and reasoning. Thanks for your broad scope of reading material, and exposition.
Wow thanks for reading this and learning alongside us! I’m humbled! Blessings to you and hope your day is well
Van Til’s observations from pages 7 and 8 square exactly with Romans 1; therefore, i agree most wholeheartedly.
Awesome to hear that. Hey thanks for reading this brother!!
Thank you. Amen.
Thank you; I just prayed for your well being
Amen. For you also.
Good point: “We don’t want to create a false either/or dichotomy pitting general revelation against special revelation when there’s an organic unity.” Dichotomies need to be tested to make sure there really are only two choices and only one of them applies.
Amen to this: ” Dichotomies need to be tested to make sure there really are only two choices and only one of them applies.” Amen that is true not only here but other areas of theology and life!
Deep stuff. It is hard for me to understand VanTil
It requires patience and prayers!
Sometimes Bahnsen is quicker for me to understand him
[…] 4.) Van Til does believe in the Perspicuity of Natural Revelation […]
Great post, Jim!
Big thanks!!