The Self-Revelation of God
- Daniel Pulliam
- Aug 30
- 7 min read
Daniel J. Pulliam
An AI generated deep-dive discussion of this post can be enjoyed here.
How does our belief about God’s revelation of Himself influence our understanding of
our ability to know truth about God? Our perspective of when and how God has revealed
Himself, if that self-revelation continues today, and the extent of our ability to
understand that revelation will have an impact on every practical outworking of our
faith. This paper argues for the two foundational categories of God’s self-revelation:
General and Special; that both categories of God’s revelation are completed and yet
ongoing with only the latter being both sufficient and necessary for salvation.
Beginning with the definition and distinction of each category, we will progress to the
intent and sufficiency of both, how each is already final while simultaneously not yet
silent, and come to rest at why this has such a tremendous impact on the outworking of
our faith.
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech,
nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” (Psalm 19:1-3)
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to
them. 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. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19-20)
Scripture is clear that there is a testimony that is given to God from the created order
and that this testimony created within very creation itself is placed there by God in such
a way that Paul says it is God Himself that is testifying to the truths about Him. This Self-
Revelation is what we categorize as “General Revelation”. General revelation is given to
all humanity. (Mathison 2012) It is important to keep the scope of general revelation
front and center as it serves as an anchor that helps maintain our moorings and a
barrier of defense against even well-meaning theories that may seek to blur the lines
between it and another category, or form, of God’s Self-Revelation, “Special Revelation”
which we will discuss momentarily. Robert Thomas makes this point by reminding us
that such products of the content of general revelation should not be conflated as
general revelation proper. (Thomas 1998) Millard Erickson delves into defining general
revelation as, “It is general in two senses: its universal availability (it is accessible to all
persons at all times) and the content of the message (it is less particularized and
detailed than special revelation).” (Erickson 1992) Thomas is right to point out that here,
Erickson blurs the lines a bit by saying general revelation extends to the content of the
message. He illustrates that various subject matters that could be categorized as
“content of the message” are not truly categories of general revelation (or special
revelation). He asserts that math, music, and astronomy, while a subject born from
studying the created order and founded on the natural laws of that order, are not to be
classified as general revelation as they have not always been, nor are they accessible to
all humanity. He states that this factor, if they were to be argued as revelatory, would
classify them as a hybrid special revelation category. (Thomas 1998)
“See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the Lord my God commanded me, that
you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it….For what
great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever
we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so
righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:5, 7-8)
“The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the
commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever; the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. More to be
desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings
of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is
great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11) It may be helpful to consider this a “Particular
Revelation” as it is not only less indiscriminately distributed but also more sharply
focused on the character and redemptive work of God.
To this end, special/particular revelation is the only self-revelation of God that is
effectual for a restored relationship with Him. It is through general revelation that the
work of “praeparatio evangelica,” (a preparing of a person(s) to be receptive of the
gospel) can be done; but this is not to place general revelation on the same plain as
special revelation. Scripture is clear that apart from truly receiving in faith God’s special
Self-revelation salvation and restoration cannot be had. (John 14:6) While general
revelation is not sufficient to save us, it is sufficient to increase and make our
condemnation visible. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the
truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to
them.” (Romans 1:18-19) Not only is general revelation insufficient to save, but it is also
insufficient to stand on its own as an authoritative source of truth. Some, such as David
Diehl, would go so far as to equate general revelation to be as objectively authoritative
and epistemologically certain as special revelation. (Byl 1989). This does introduce
some theological issues which John Byl addresses well in “General Revelation and
Evangelicalism” which I believe his strongest argument against Diehl is that our theories
of the workings of the created order are not to be equated with the truth of inspired
Scripture. Our working theories of how or why a thing happens in the created order is
flawed due to sin, nor is our coming to an understanding of the workings of a thing
through powers of observation the same as God’s infallible Self-revelation.
Both General and Special revelation are in their final (or closed) state. Gerald O’Collins
argues that revelation should be understood as a foundational past event with ongoing
present experience and future hope. This distinction firmly roots the self-revelating act
of God in a historical point-in-time event and argues that the recording of that event (The
Scriptures) is not conflated with said revelation. (Bernhardt 2010) This Barthian view, I
believe, is attempting to emphasize the weight of God’s self-revelation in that historical
moment. Grasping that these moments of God’s revelation are real, point in time,
historical events is vital; but not at the expense of the existence of that same self-
revelation. The Scriptures are not just a mere record of the self-revelation of God, they
are the God-inspired record of His self-revelation, and as such they are themselves a
special self-revelation of God. Just as the created order is a general self-revelation of
God. Both types of revelation have taken place in the past, but they are not stagnant
revelations that we merely read about as one may read of the Battle of Waterloo. The
Self-Revelation of God did take place at a point in time, but its power is not confined to
that point in time. General revelation took place at the moment of creation, yet it does
carry on. Not merely the effects of that moment, but Scripture is clear that the
revelation is vibrant and continuous. It’s not the echoes that are heard in day and night,
but the voice of general revelation testifying (Psalm 19:1-3). So, it is with
special/particular revelation. What’s more, it is the Spirit of God that calls the elect
(Romans 8:29-30), which is an act of special revelation in the present.
This leads us to our final point, one of application. Matthison makes a valid point that
while all God does is perfect and without error, that does not mean that our
interpretation of God’s revelation (general and special) is without error. (Matthison 2018)
This does not equate the priority of general and special revelation, only that both are
infallible and true in what they communicate. It is our responsibility to seek to interpret
accurately. The primary impact this has on the outworking of our faith is the weight we
give to Scripture and the authority if has upon our lives that is over and above any
scientific theory one may hold regarding creation or the created order. Our
understanding of the moment in time yet actively speaking tension will determine
whether we believe the cannon is closed and the weight we give to professed “new”
revelation. Scripture was given to inform, encourage, and equip us for our Christian
Walk. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Therefore, our view of
God’s Self-revelation, particularly in the Scriptures, is foundational and impressively
determinative to the outworking of our faith.
Bibliography
Bernhardt, Reinhold. "Scriptural Authority: A Christian (Protestant) Perspective."
Buddhist-Christian Studies 30 (2010): 73-84.
Byl, John. “General Revelation and Evangelicalism.” Mid-America Journal of Theology 5,
no. 1 (1989): 1-13.
Erickson, Millard J. “Christian Theology”, 3rd edition. Baker Academic, 1983.
Mathison, Keith. "General and Special Revelation." Ligonier Ministries, May 18,
2012. Accessed 6/10/2025.
approach-science-and-scripture.
Thomas, Robert L. “General Revelation and Biblical Hermeneutics”. TMSJM, August1,
1998. TMSJ 9/1 (Spring 1998) 5-23
Comments