OBVIOUS REVELATION - 07.01.1999 By: B. Hearn

Someone once asked me: “If God wants everyone to believe in him, then why doesn’t he obviously show himself to us?” – suggesting perhaps more of us would believe in God if He were more obvious to mankind. While listening to a program on the Internet recently I came across a skeptical gentleman who asked: “If God felt it was necessary in the past to provide us with supernatural evidence for the sake of our belief, then why does he act in such a hidden fashion now? Why doesn’t God part a few seas and rain fire and brimstone down on a few cities today?” The skeptic’s argument goes something like this:

  1. God desires mankind to believe in Him

  2. Supernatural evidence helps mankind to believe in God

  3. God does not provide sufficient supernatural evidence to all of mankind

  4. Therefore, God does not or cannot achieve what He desires to the fullest potential

Starting with the first premise: “God desires mankind to believe in Him” - to correctly infer from this premise one must see the possibility of a conflicting greater desire. Oftentimes to the skeptic the phrase: “God desires mankind to believe in Him,” simply means: “God desires everyone to acknowledge his existence.” If that were true, God would be known with perfect knowledge of His existence. But of course this is not the case. In actuality, God desires for us to have a personal relationship with Him and this means far more than merely recognizing His existence.

  • “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (Deuteronomy 6:5)

  • “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33)

  • “The Lord is not slow in keeping with his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9)

Here Scripture describes in part, man’s responsibility to the relationship. The skeptic may claim he is ready and willing to love, seek and repent, as soon as God makes his existence obvious enough to overcome all doubt. However, a true relationship with God is not achieved primarily through man’s effort. C. S. Lewis in an excerpt from The Problem of Pain explains:

“Man is not the center. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. ‘Thou has created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.’ [Rev. 4:11] We were made not primarily that we may love God (although we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest “well pleased.” To ask that God’s love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God cease to be God: because He is what He is, His love must, in the nature of things, be impeded and repelled by certain stains in our present character, and because He already loves us He must labor to make us lovable.”  

God’s labor to “make us lovable” is a process of reforming our character towards Perfection, and this perfect character is found in the person of Jesus Christ. By relinquishing our will and seeking God’s will through faith in Christ we gain access into God’s grace, opening the door to His life-transforming labor. The Apostle Paul explains how by faith we can enter into a peaceful relationship with God so the process of Sanctification [1] may begin: “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand…” (Romans 5:1-2) Based on the clarification provided thus far, we will modify the first and second premise of the skeptic’s argument to reflect the actual Christian position without turning it into a straw man [2] :

  1. God desires mankind to have a personal relationship with Him

  2. Supernatural evidence helps mankind to have a personal relationship with God

  3. God does not provide sufficient supernatural evidence to all of mankind

  4. Therefore, God does not or cannot achieve what He desires to the fullest potential

Upon changing the second premise to reflect the actual Christian position we see it becomes arguably false. Of course God does want everyone to have a personal relationship with Him (2 Peter 3:9), but by revealing Himself in ways the skeptic might recommend, the outcome would be less than perfect. However, God’s plan to have a relationship with us is perfect: It is designed to draw His creation to Him in the right measure, not by mere numbers or percentages, but by the very character of Christ. It simply wouldn’t matter if everyone knew of God but no one had the character of Christ. So if there is a reasonable possibility obvious revelation or abundant supernatural evidence would hinder the relationship God desires for His creation, then one should doubt the validity of the second premise.

Without revelation, the desired relationship between God and man would be impossible since we wouldn’t know of Him. Infinite revelation would require us to be infinite beings capable of receiving it. In other words, God must reveal Himself to us in a finite way. What if divine revelation were maximal? What if from 'cradle to grave' God had constant and intense contact with us? Would not our minds, spirit and free will be smothered and extinguished? Keep in mind our free will is a God-given attribute and only by such freedom is true love for Him possible. But with our limited minds in constant sensory overload, it’s doubtful we could function at all, certainly not as “objects in which the divine love may rest well pleased.” At this point we may conclude divine revelation exists at a level greater than zero and less than maximal. But this raises an obvious question: How do we know the optimal amount of revelation is not what currently exists in reality? How much supernatural evidence would it take to bring about a relationship between God and the skeptic who raised the opening question? If someone goes his or her entire life rejecting God from the amount of revelation given, how do we know a greater amount would have a positive impact? In other words, more revelation is not necessarily better. In fact, the atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell could think of no evidence that would convince him of God's existence; let alone persuade him to submit his will to divine authority. 

But let us bring our imagination into play and visualize this alternate reality… Every morning at 8:00 AM (in the time zone where you reside) the clouds part in Monty Python style to reveal a jovial face. “Today I will make the sun blue!” – says the obvious god. Naturally the people complain because many liked it the way it was. Organized protests ensue demanding complete autonomy and an end to all supernatural displays. The scientist’s have their concerns: “Inexplicable being, we appreciate the recent observable events which might eventually lead us to conclude you are in fact responsible for them. However, we need a bit more data before we can categorize you as a being worthy of worship.” OK, I’ll admit this is a bit fanciful, but does this not hint at man’s true character? When the will is obedient to God, divine revelation is welcomed. When we choose our will as preeminent, submission to a higher authority is repugnant. Perhaps our will only sets the polarity and the amount of divine revelation determines the breadth of polarization. In other words, perhaps more obvious revelation would only drive away those whose will is already firmly set against God’s.

One must also consider Christian faith in this matter. Remember the words of Jesus when he told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29) Christ calls us to relinquish our trust in ourselves and place it in Him. (2 Corinthians 1:9) In fact, the theme of putting our faith and trust in God runs throughout the entire Bible. If God desires we put our trust in Him, it hardly makes any sense at all that He would sap our faith, leaving mere knowledge, unless it were providentially necessary. But might actually our faith be strengthened by supernatural evidence? Not necessarily. According to Scripture: the Israelites were shown awesome miracles during their mass exodus from Egypt. However, it didn't take long after being delivered by God's mighty hand for them to abandon their faith. It seems hard to believe, given such supernatural evidence, the Israelites could do what they did. Yet after careful reflection it seems right in line with our nature when apart from the Spirit of God. Our nature is to forget the awesome blessings which God bestows upon us and to focus instead on ourselves.

This leads us to the third premise and what is called General Revelation. General Revelation refers to God’s revelation in nature as opposed to His revelation through the Spirit and Scripture. [3] “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (Ps. 19:1) The Teleological Argument, or the argument from design, is one of the (classical) arguments for the existence of God. You may have heard of Paley’s Watchmaker where upon finding a watch you would rightly conclude it had a watchmaker and not that it was formed by unguided random processes. Therefore, when we look at the awesome complexity and variety found in nature, we should draw a similar conclusion. Even though I personally find this argument very powerful [4] , I only include it here to show it is reasonable to argue (from a Christian perspective) God does reveal himself to everyone to some degree.

Of course it is one thing to place reasonable doubt on the case for obvious revelation and quite another to explain to everyone's satisfaction why God reveals himself the way He does. I therefore conclude with the perspective of French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal - God’s justifiable and regulatory use of revelation in his Pensees #430:

"God has willed to redeem men and to open salvation to those who seek it. But men render themselves so unworthy of it that it is right that God should refuse to some, because of their obduracy, what He grants others from a compassion which is not due to them. If He had willed to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, He could have done so by revealing Himself so manifestly to them that they could not have doubted of the truth of His essence; as it will appear at the last day, with such thunders and such a convulsion of nature that the dead will rise again, and the blindest will see Him. It is not in this manner that He has willed to appear in His advent of mercy, because, as so many make themselves unworthy of His mercy, He has willed to leave them in the loss of the good which they do not want. It was not, then, right that He should appear in a manner manifestly divine, and completely capable of convincing all men; but it was also not right that He should come in so hidden a manner that He could not be known by those who should sincerely seek Him. He has willed to make himself quite recognizable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition."

[1] Sanctification – “made holy” by the work of the Holy Spirit

[2] Straw man – informal fallacy where an argument is set up to be easily confuted

[3] Geisler, Norman – Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics – pg 670, Baker Books, 1999

[4] Especially in light of recent discoveries relating to the fine-tuning of the universe – See: The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle by: William Lane Craig (at other online links on this site)

 

essay