Innate Knowledge In The Thought Of Wilhelmus À Brakel

By Todd D. Baucum

The Baroque world of the seventeenth century brought a cacophony of new thinking into the life of the Dutch Reformed Church. Descartes’s famous axiom “cogito, ergo sum,” [1] seeking certitude in that which is beyond doubt, re-ignited the old battles of epistemology that had been fought throughout the medieval age. How we know truth and the line between us and the eternal God were perennial issues; natural knowledge of God is a philosophical question that goes back to Aristotle. [2] In light of this long history, it is crucial to see how Wilhelmus à Brakel stands not in isolation, but as part of a trajectory of orthodox thought. His work is both scholastic and biblical in method and in commitment. As a pastoral theologian, à Brakel engaged in theological disputes, but not with the eye of an academic. His purpose was aimed higher: he wrote theology for the glory of God and to move human hearts in loving obedience to Him.

In a preface, à Brakel wrote, “They are assaulted on the one side by people of a corrupt mind who propose reason to be the rule for doctrine and life; on the other side by people who, in striving for holiness and love, set aside truth and stray towards a religion which proceeds from nature, revolving around the practice of virtue.” [3] It is in this divergence of emphasis that we see balance and brilliance in the discussion of innate knowledge.

Historical Background Of The Further Reformation

As a representative of the mainstream of the Dutch Further Reformation, Wilhelmus à Brakel had enormous influence on his countrymen in the hugely popular publication of his De Redelijke Godsdienst. [4] It is the object of this study to understand his view of innate knowledge and natural revelation in light of the broader historical context of the Netherlands in the seventeenth century and beyond. It is also important to see à Brakel in light of the Reformed tradition and its treatment of natural revelation in comparison with Calvin’s own view and other Reformed thinkers. Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676), who had a strong influence on à Brakel, wrote against Descartes, but à Brakel took a more nuanced approach to the issue of natural theology. This would have implications for later theologians such as B. B. Warfield and Herman Bavinck, appearing in their positive approach to natural theology.

Theological controversy does not happen in a vacuum, and the historical context in which à Brakel’s ministry occurred sheds light on some of the influences surrounding the debates. Robert Godfrey comments broadly on the cultural times in the Netherlands during this period:

Changes of the seventeenth century brought many other influences to bear on life in the Netherlands. The United Provinces were clearly one of the leading countries of Europe in the middle of the seventeenth century and had achieved considerable political stability and security. Economically the Netherlands flourished, dominating world trade. Culturally her art and literature blossomed, producing such greats as Rembrandt and Vondel. Many varied intellectual currents flowed through the Netherlands. Voetius stoutly set himself against novelty and diversity and continued to pursue in quite medieval terms his ideal of a fully Reformed society. [5]

Looking at the religious climate, Stoeffler paints a rather unspiritual picture of the times, writing, “Preaching was largely a matter of setting forth correct theological dogmas and generally accepted middle class virtues, the latter with a touch of artificial religious flavor…. Dutch culture in general put emphasis upon material things, upon comfort and security, and among the more sophisticated, upon the pursuit of intellectual ends. This was the age of Descartes whose speculations began to challenge the theologians.” [6] This was the context in which the pietistic impulse of the Further Reformation began to thrive among men like Voetius and à Brakel.

This study will focus on à Brakel’s contribution to a Reformed view of knowledge and natural revelation. This discussion about epistemology did not just emerge in his day, and it is paramount to put the discussion in historical and philosophical context.

Philosophical, Theological, And Cultural Context

From the medieval period and throughout the time of the Reformation, theology was the indisputable queen of the sciences. Philosophy and reason were understood to be the handmaids of faith and the knowledge of God. With the influence of the Renaissance and the growing confidence of reason as a source of authority, the ground began to shift under Teutonic pressure. It would be described as a time of major philosophical change. Epistemological questions go back to antiquity, but they took new meaning with the arrival of Descartes. Albert Avey writes: “The seventeenth century was the time of the florescence of British empiricism and Continental rationalism. From Francis Bacon, on the one hand, and Descartes, on the other, ran two streams of emphasis in thought which were merged by Kant in the next century.” [7] The knowledge of God became less of a concern as the mere search for the ground of knowing took center stage. “Aristotelian logic was re-formulated, and the problem of knowledge was made a central concern.” [8] Questions of how we know and what we know moved beyond mere stoic skepticism to dominate a new emerging worldview.

This was the age of Galileo, Pascal, and Isaac Newton, and the rise of modern science and great changes in the intellectual climate as universities moved away from the dominance and control of ecclesiastical authority. In many respects, Erastian principles at work in the Netherlands and other countries allowed the State to grant increasing freedom of thought to academic scholars and appointments to state schools without theological screening. One cannot assume the prominence of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands included authority over the universities in keeping orthodoxy in check. The diversity of theologies already addressed at the Synod of Dordt did not grant the conclusions of the Synod any lasting authority, for in less than a century the Synod of Dordt was almost forgotten as Holland became the standard bearer of tolerance over theological disputes in Europe. Such a climate opened doors to men like Descartes, a French Roman Catholic in conventional belief, and Baruch Spinoza, a Hebraic philosopher, who arguably took Cartesian thought to one radical end of the metaphysical spectrum. These open doors were not embraced by the theologians of the Dutch Further Reformation. But their opposition did not mean they were against reason with fideist leanings. These were men of learning and deep piety, and it is to a key representative that we now turn, Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635-1711).

À Brakel’s Life And Influence

Wilhelmus à Brakel was born on January 2, 1635, and grew up under the immeasurable influence of a pious home and a minister father, Theodorus à Brakel (1608-1669). Theodorus was a significant figure in the Dutch Further Reformation, and he certainly passed the torch of reforming piety to the next generation. The elder à Brakel wedded the mystical tradition of the Modern Devotion from the likes Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas á Kempis with Calvin’s theology of Reformed orthodoxy. He was known to practice an intense prayer and meditative life similar to those in monastic orders. [9] This background shaped and influenced Wilhelmus and left its mark on his own contribution to spiritual reformation while serving several congregations in Friesland. The younger à Brakel would rise in respect and influence through his theological writings aimed not at academics but for the benefit of regular believers. He combined “dogmatic capability” with a “pastoral, experiential disposition.” [10]

In Joel Beeke’s introduction to the first English translation of De Redelijke, he notes the balanced approach of à Brakel to the theological trends of his day. Citing the work of Osterhaven, he writes, “The experiential theology sought a healthy balance between mysticism and precisionism.” [11] Considering the two streams in the Dutch Further Reformation, mysticism (and the danger of subjectivism) and activism (and the danger of legalism), à Brakel was a mainstream representative of the Nadere Reformatie. Within this tension, he was a strong advocate of both the inner and outward aspects of Christian orthodoxy. Writing against the extremes of rationalistic doctrine and subjective Labadism, he used reason and a scholastic method to refute unsound theology. [12]

The historical analytical work of Richard Muller is especially aimed at debunking some of the simplistic categorizing of all scholastic methodology as capitulation to Aristotelian thought. Muller concludes: “The use and development of scholastic method, in other words, although one of the indices to the development of Reformation and post-Reformation theology, is an issue that can and, indeed, must be distinguished from the use of various elements of Aristotelian physics, metaphysics, or ethics. A thinker may be identified as ‘scholastic,’ whether in the Middle Ages or the early modern era, by his use of the prevalent methods of academic disputes.” [13] This is especially true when it comes to à Brakel’s work in De Redelijke Godsdienst. His question and answer writing method is very scholastic in pedagogical style and reasoning.

Key Debates In Reformed Thinking

Descartes sought to move philosophy away from what he considered the speculations of theology. René Descartes lived in the Netherlands for a twenty-year period (1628-1649), during which he wrote most of his philosophical work. The physician Henri Reguis taught Descartes’s theories at the University of Utrecht, but not all were pleased with his views. This is where the famous controversy erupted in 1648 between Voetius and Descartes, out of which would come Descartes’s Letter to Voetius, where he argued for religious toleration for all beliefs since all religions worship the same God. [14]

As W. Robert Godfrey notes, “The emergence of Descartes’s thought marked a special challenge to Reformed dogmaticians as Cartesian philosophy confronted Aristotelianism often used to express Reformed systematic theology in the universities. Thus theology moved in a more technical and scholastic direction in response to the polemical and philosophical climate of the day, but also in response to the basic Reformed conviction that theology was a science.” [15]

On Descartes And The Theory Of Knowledge

À Brakel’s mentor and teacher, Gisbertus Voetius, debated Descartes and wrote against his philosophical method. [16] We can detect in à Brakel’s work a consistent development and a further refinement of Voetius’s rejection of reason as a sole basis for the search for knowledge. À Brakel has a rather positive view of man’s reasoning ability and his concept of “innate knowledge,” while not buying wholesale into the view of Descartes, does couch the concept in the image of God. In philosophy, an “innate idea” is something congenital in a human, not learned or acquired by experience. It maintains that certain ideas such as God and infinity must be innate because there is no satisfactory way to explain their existence. [17] Jay Wood writes: “Descartes was educated in Europe at a time when the scholastic paradigm that had dominated the university curriculum for centuries was in disarray…. Various social and political events such as the religious wars following the Reformation jointly contributed to an atmosphere of intellectual uncertainty, whose disturbing effects were keenly felt by Descartes.” [18]

This era can be described as a “search for certainty,” but it ushered in a new methodology that sought certitude through the autonomous self and “not in the church or tradition…but in the mind of the knowing subject.” [19] Descartes wanted to ground certitude in a foundational truth that would not be subject to competing ecclesiastical debates, setting aside the scholastic methodology of Thomist reasoning for a new one. Descartes took skepticism to a point of irreducible questioning, rejecting both the conclusion of stoicism and classical theology. The doubting self became the point of irreducible knowledge, from which to deduce other areas of knowing. Ironically, the gift of certitude that Descartes thought he would give to both philosophers and theologians laid the ground work for the skepticism in biblical theology that would follow. Both Voetius and à Brakel knew this, we could safely assume, and sought to defend biblical faith upon a more certain ground. Natural theology became the chief concern in regard to metaphysics and certitude would fade away in the fog of modern rationalism where reason would hold court over revelation.

In the following analysis of à Brakel’s view of innate knowledge, our purpose will be to accurately explain his argument point by point and to offer some comparisons with other theologians who followed him.

À Brakel’s View Of Reason And Natural Theology

The Belgic Confession recognized that God has used the book of nature to reveal a true knowledge of Himself. Article 2 states: “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 contemplate the invisible things of God.” [20] Within this theological tradition of the two books—the book of nature and the book of Scripture—à Brakel develops his rationale for innate knowledge. He notes that it is a given that knowledge of God must be mediated if it is in any sense understood as revelation: “If man is to make God the foundation of religion, recognizing his obligation towards Him, then he must know God. This makes it necessary first to demonstrate from which source the right knowledge of God must be derived.” [21] From this basic premise, which from the point of Christian dogmatics is certain, à Brakel shows that we need to know the source of this knowledge. He then introduces the concept of innate knowledge in his doctrine of revelation. To convey the significance and full meaning of this notion, he even invents a new word, Godserkennendheid—the innate knowledge of God. Innate knowledge is not a Cartesian innate idea, strictly speaking, deduced by mere reasoning; rather, it is a gift of God. “God has created within all men an innate knowledge that God is, that is, an acknowledgement that God exists.” [22]

À Brakel then proceeded to distinguish innate knowledge from what it is not. First, it is not just the human ability to think. He gives this example: prior to birth, a child cannot have a thought; thus it would not be innate if it must be seen as mere cognition. [23] Secondly, it is not some type of mental image imprinted as it were on the heart. It is not an image in the mind like a mirror or the remnant of a memory, for then everyone would base their view of God on their own mental picture or image. This would not be innate but the origin and causality of knowledge.

Rather, according to à Brakel, humans have the capacity to have a “potential” knowledge of God, or in his own words, “an impression of God.” [24] This is very similar to the view of Calvin whose sensus divinititas is part of what God gives to all people, whether elect or not.

For à Brakel, this impression is a “created nobility” that is rooted in the imago Dei. This is a shadow of man’s former prelapsarian state and merely the capacity to know that God exists—that He is the Creator and Ruler and everyone is obligated to live under His rule, and those who disobey will be held accountable. So, this knowledge follows the biblical description in Romans 1, with basic knowledge about God’s eternal power and the human responsibility or moral consequences of this knowledge. [25]

Moreover, à Brakel is balanced in how he understands the working of this knowledge. In some ways it is like a light switch, with all the potential to bring illumination, but needs someone to throw the switch. À Brakel’s positive view of human nature is also tempered with a biblical view of sin. A child must be taught about God; when they hear they were made by God, this “innate knowledge of a God or better put, the acknowledgement of God is to be activated.” This is a latent ability that must be brought to action or life by the work of God. This aspect of God’s knowledge is developed in his chapter on soteriology and the work of the Holy Spirit: “Man, having been gifted with innate knowledge and created with the ability to reason as well as to acknowledge God, is capable of knowing God in due season.” [26] À Brakel makes clear that this knowledge is always in essence a revealed truth that comes from beyond or outside the person in origination. There are two ways this knowledge is revealed: in nature and in the special revealed truth of Scripture.

From nature, he recites the evidence given by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:19-20: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” This is the outward testimony that God gives in the created world.

Secondly, there is the inward testimony of conscience. “Man’s innate ability to reason enables him by way of research to become knowledgeable in various subjects as well as to increase in this acquired knowledge.” [27] This seems to give reason a more positive role in the unregenerate state to attain certain truth about God. Taken at this point, it appears that à Brakel is affirming both a positive view of the will and the mind. “Likewise the innate knowledge of God enables man, by observing the works of God in their created nobility, to increase in the knowledge of God and by means of the visible ascend to the invisible One.” [28] This may seem problematic with other doctrines like the effect of sin, fallen reason, and the absolute need of regeneration to rightly apprehend God. This weakness or potential weakness will be addressed later. What is being argued in this point is the correlation between natural revelation and innate knowledge, and not what follows in what can be known in an unregenerate state. “That which is visible could not possibly communicate to man that there is a God if prior to that he did not have an impression of God in his soul.” [29] Therefore, natural revelation for à Brakel is external to us, for it comes from outside of us. He quotes from Job and Psalm 19 to give textual evidence. “But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?” [30] “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.” [31] His basis for such a positive view of natural revelation is founded on what Scripture actually affirms. In his explanation of the inward witness, à Brakel also affirms that the moral law of the conscience is a point of contact where God has spoken. “[I]t is evident that man by nature possesses both an external and internal knowledge of God.” [32]

À Brakel makes the classic distinction between natural revelation, which God gives in two forms, and natural theology, which is the outworking of what one can believe based on that revelation. Here he recounts three ways to develop natural theology. This is a historical synopsis of methodology, and thereby presumably not a personal endorsement of all types. This again would be, in true fashion, a way of scholastic methodology. First, the way of negation is to affirm what we do not know. À Brakel does not put names with this approach, but it is clearly the apophatic theology of thinkers like Dionysius the Areopagite and John Scotus from the ninth century who affirmed that we cannot deduce what God is but merely affirm what He is not. [33]

Second, there is a natural theology that affirms all that is good, beautiful, and enjoyed in God’s creation points to an uncreated Being, that is, God. This approach reflects what is known as the ontological argument as advanced by Anselm, and a proof retained by Descartes.

The third way is arguing from the simple to the cause, or the cosmological argument. In addition to affirming these classical Thomist views on natural revelation, à Brakel later adds a fourth, the moral argument. His scholastic methodology again addresses the disputed point. If there is no innate knowledge, then the pagan would be without an inner law; and if he did not have an inner law, he would not be accountable to such a law. If there is no law to which a pagan is held accountable, then by definition such a person would be without guilt and without sin. [34]

From this point, à Brakel answers several objections to the notion of innate knowledge. [35] If it is innate in all men, then there would be no atheists, reasons the first objection. But there are atheists. The argument against innate knowledge is seemingly established on the ground that it would lead to universal belief or at least acknowledgment of deity. Some even offer evidence: “in some heathen it has been observed that not the least trace of religion was found.” [36] If atheism was found among some groups or in isolated periods of pre-Christian antiquity, would this not discredit the notion of innate knowledge as mere conjecture?

À Brakel’s answer is simply petitio principia, meaning, this begs the question. This is a form of fallacy found in circular reasoning. The fact that there are some atheists represents the proposition they are the exception to the rule and so the normative evidence points to the prevailing reality that most people in all cultures do have a belief in some god. À Brakel is putting Aquinas to good use. Even if it is given that atheism exists, someone confessing unbelief does not disprove the notion that “concealed in their heart” is a “propensity” to acknowledge a god.

When the Bible speaks of atheism, as David does in the Psalms, it refers to the denial of the ungodly who seek not to honor God but “to silence their disturbed conscience.” This kind of atheistic belief is a mere confession that they deny God, which still does not disprove, on a biblical basis, the notion of innate knowledge. David writes in Psalm 14:1: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” When Paul speaks about those who are “without God,” he is speaking of those not in a saving relationship with God, which is not connected to verity of innate knowledge: “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12).

As already noted earlier in the historical context, Europe was seeing a new spirit of skepticism sweep throughout the universities. One leader in this school of thought that rejects God and moral absolutes was the Dutch philosopher, Baruch de Spinoza. [37] If atheism is on the rise and reason is the only guide for knowledge (having rejected the Scriptures as God’s revelation), then it would seem to indicate that there is no such thing as innate knowledge. Such people use reason to deduce God is not triune (Socinians) and that God is more of an impersonal force or beyond any dealings with nature (Deism). The implication is that such innate knowledge would be an aid to reason in deducing the existence of God. Therefore, if such knowledge was real, it would naturally lead to belief and not unbelief.

For à Brakel, the real concern is how reason is applied to a right understanding of Scripture. Those who reject Scripture and its moral virtues and foundations show in themselves the result of such faulty use of reasoning. Biblical doctrine acknowledges the propensity of fallen minds to suppress the truth. “Consequently, a person can become completely oblivious to the existence of God; however, from this it does not follow that God did not create this knowledge and conscience within man.” [38] Finally, à Brakel affirms, the absence of faith cannot disprove the “propensity or the ability” to have a belief in God. It logically cannot follow.

Next in line of arguments is the question about the saving ability of innate knowledge. Can innate knowledge lead to salvation? Can natural knowledge of God save us? This is indeed a central concern for those who want to safeguard a traditional understanding of the sufficiency of Scripture and uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Is there a possible trap-door option in this language? In response, à Brakel states the Socinians would respond affirmatively and that Arminians and Roman Catholics would lean this way. À Brakel himself would respond with a loud “No.” Here is found his natural theology and any hint of weakness from the standpoint of Reformed orthodoxy is put to rest. He affirms that innateness can teach us of judgment, but not of mercy and grace. It will leave us “ignorant of the satisfaction of the justice of God and of the holiness with which one is able to stand in the just judgment of God.” [39] There is no salvation outside of Christ. Only one name is given and in only one name must we believe ( John 14:6; Acts 4:12; John 3:36). The knowledge of Christ and salvific power is not attainable in the innate knowledge of God; “He is revealed only in the Gospel.” [40] Thus à Brakel affirms human propensity for belief while strongly committed to the Reformed understanding of the human inability to come to God in a relationship of grace. “It is therefore incontrovertible that the natural knowledge of God cannot bring about salvation for man.” [41]

Second Set Of Objections

If there is innate knowledge from the light of nature, some will seek; the question then follows, will it not lead to more light? In other words, if humans suppress the truth and are condemned, what about those who respond to the light of nature? This is a common objection, as if there is a loophole in the order of God’s redemptive plan. The answer à Brakel gives is again within the realm of Reformed orthodoxy. The light of nature spoken by Paul in Romans is not a light sufficient to bring a person to a choice of faith or unbelief. It does not contain and cannot be proven from Scripture that this light of nature can give anyone but the bare knowledge of the existence of a Creator. This light of nature is only able to convict “man that God is just in condemning him.” [42] Such a view was held by both Calvin and Jonathan Edwards: “Natural knowledge of God, after the Fall, is a kind of revelation reserved for the regenerate. Only a believer can know God’s original intention in nature: knowledge of himself as Creator, Provider, and Redeemer.” [43]

À Brakel also responded to the textual evidence offered by some based on Romans 2:4 and Acts 17:27 that innate knowledge does provide sufficient light to see a need to seek and find God, and that therefore God would receive such a one if they come by the light of nature.

• Romans 2:4: “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”
• Acts 17:27: “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us.”

À Brakel first deals with the textual issue as central to his argument. Romans 2 is addressed to those who hear the gospel, and thus has nothing to do with innate knowledge but with revealed truth. Secondly, natural light may lead some to reform their lives to a life of virtue and so be spoken as a “conversion,” but this is not true conversion where a person is transformed from death to life through Christ alone.

In the Acts passage, Paul is showing how the idol to the unknown god had left them in ignorance, for they did not depart from their idolatry, thus proving his point. The idol to the unknown god was in essence a testimony of God’s requirement for all people to seek after Him. This is precisely the point that à Brakel is making regarding innate knowledge; the objection proves the point. “Man is obligated to seek God…, however, without the wondrous light which God grants to His children in the moment of regeneration, they shall never, ‘feel after Him, and find Him’ unto reconciliation and salvation, even though the light of nature may bring them to the realization that God truly exists and wished to be served in spirit and in truth.” [44] Seeking after God is then a gift of grace that God gives not to the unbeliever who suppresses truth, but to the one whom He calls and to whom He grants redemptive knowledge through the Holy Spirit.

The next line of objection is concerning the moral law or the inner conscience. This is the view that a truly virtuous man can be saved if he follows the light given to him. Natural knowledge implies, as they argue, a knowledge that is sufficient for salvation. If a person responds to this natural revelation, God will give more grace—which in the end will lead to salvation. For this objection textual evidence is also supplied, such as in Matthew 13:12: “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given….” They also give evidence as shown in the example of Job, the Centurion (Matt. 8) and Cornelius (Acts 10). To such supposedly strong textual evidence, à Brakel applies good reasoning and sound exegesis. He takes the argument apart both logically and biblically. No one rightly uses the light of nature. No one can live a life of virtue even if they ostensibly seek to live a moral life, for the basis of true virtue is in faith. “They do not proceed from faith, are not in true harmony with the law, and are not performed to the honor of God.” [45] A virtuous life is not simply virtue as defined by Aristotle, or by modern standards, but biblical virtue is aimed at the service and honor of God.

The final big question that is left hanging in the minds of those who follow the logical precision of à Brakel is, If innate knowledge or natural revelation does not save us, what good is it? À Brakel outlines six benefits, briefly described as:

1. God exists and is an invisible, spiritual being who is infinite, holy, omnipotent, good, and just.
2. God is the cause of all things and the sovereign Lord over all things.
3. All people are obligated to do God’s will.
4. Everyone is confronted with their guilt “against the background of God’s justice.”
5. Such knowledge promotes civility.
6. Through the revelation of the Scriptures we are able to be led in true godliness by the Holy Spirit.

The Reformed View In Historical Glance

Calvin’s Institutes begins with the dual focus of self knowledge and knowledge of God—Dei notitiam et nostril res esse conjunctas.

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. [46]

This description asserts a strong positive role of natural revelation in our knowledge of God, but one that is rooted in God as the “fountain” of origin. In a manner echoing the language of Aquinas, Calvin would affirm the cosmological argument, in a fashion that also sees its limitation. [47] “[I]t is certain that man never achieves a clear knowledge of himself unless he has first looked upon God’s face, and then descends from contemplating him to scrutinize himself.” [48] Found in both Augustine and Aquinas (sources for Calvin) is the concept of theologia naturalis. This is rooted not in speculation, but in revelation, as Calvin’s commentary on Romans 1:21 reflects: “God has presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they seek not to know—that there is some God.” [49] Atheism does not deny the veracity of innate knowledge for Calvin, just as à Brakel had argued. Calvin writes: “If, indeed, there were some in the past, and today not a few appear, who deny that God exists, yet willy-nilly they from time to time feel an inkling of what they desire not to believe.” [50]

Calvin’s view of this innate knowledge of God was affirmed by the Synod of Dordt under the fourth and fifth head of doctrine and described as “glimmerings of natural light”:

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God. [51]

It would be hard to deny that there is any disagreement between this view and the one previously stated by Calvin. Following this trajectory of thinking, we move on to consider another influential theologian in Dutch circles up to the modern period.

Herman Bavinck

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) taught theology at the Free University of Amsterdam. In an essay originally published for the Princeton Theological Review in 1909, he approvingly cites Calvin’s positive view on human reasoning. Like Calvin, he speaks of “remnants of the divine image” that leave man with a capacity to know something of God and also sets humans apart from other creatures. Referencing Calvin’s commentary on Romans 2, Bavinck speaks of some degree of knowledge that is found in fallen man: “[I]t is contrary to Scripture as well as to experience to attribute to man such a perpetual blindness as would render him unable to form any true conception. On the contrary, there is light still shining in the darkness, men still retain a degree of love for the truth, some spark of the truth has still been preserved.” [52] It is this spark of truth still in man that matches à Brakel’s view of innate knowledge. Yet this knowledge of God reveals the justice of God’s power and wrath against rebellious sinners. Fallen humanity can only know God as Creator and not as Redeemer. The special revelation found in the gospel is needed to know the redeeming love found in Jesus Christ.

Bavinck writes: “For since the Fall nature no longer reveals to us God’s paternal favor. On every side it proclaims the divine curse which cannot but fill our guilty souls with despair.” [53] “It is true the Holy Spirit as a spirit of sanctification dwells in believers only, but as a spirit of life, of wisdom and of power He works also in those who do not believe.” [54] So, we can see in Bavinck’s own view of Calvin the same line of thought found in à Brakel—that this remnant of knowledge, latent in all people, is only a benefit to those who are also regenerated by the work of the Holy Spirit. But Bavinck still affirms a possible point of contact that can be used in man’s reasoning abilities. Herman Ridderbos asserts, “[W]hen with Bavinck one allows for a certain epistemological commonness, then one can put the question as to what one can accomplish in this territory with the proofs for the existence of God. And then one will come to the conclusion, that nothing can be mathematically demonstrated in this field, but the Christian position can be defended before the ‘natural reason’ as well as that of others.” [55] The ground of commonness has some value, but it is a limited value and is dependent upon the work of the Holy Spirit to bring light where darkness prevails.

In this respect, the advocate of Reformed epistemology, Nicholas Wolterstorff, states that Bavinck’s doctrine of innate knowledge “is not that ‘we are able, all by ourselves, to deduce conscious, clear and valid knowledge of God from the contents of our own minds.’ The idea is rather ‘that we possess both the capacity (aptitude, faculty) and the inclination (habitus, disposition) to arrive at some firm, certain, and unfailing knowledge of God…. This disposition to form beliefs about God is not a disposition to draw inferences about God. It is rather a disposition whose output is immediately formed beliefs about God.” [56] Therefore this innate knowledge needs to be triggered by God’s revelation, both in external and internal means.

Next we turn to a contemporary of Bavinck, crossing the Atlantic to the teaching at Princeton of the eminent B. B. Warfield.

B. B. Warfield

The great Princeton apologist Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (1851-1921) was at his core a biblical theologian who taught polemical theology at a time of modernism’s great challenge to orthodoxy. In considering Warfield’s religious epistemology, it is safe to assume that he held to a positive role for human reason. As a leading representative of Princetonian apologetics, Warfield held that the duty of believers “is no less than to reason the world into the acceptance of the truth.” [57] Like Calvin, he believed that there is a remaining remnant of the knowledge of God, but added, “our native endowment is not merely a sensus deitatis, but also a semen religionis.” [58] This seed or innate desire to worship, bent inward and suppressed, is nonetheless for Warfield evidence that man was created to worship the Creator.

Man is incurably religious. But, for Warfield, this positive aspect of human nature is spoiled by sin. Therefore, the work of the Spirit in regeneration is the starting point for a right view of God: “His doctrine of the testimony of the Spirit is the keystone of his doctrine of the knowledge of God. Men endowed by nature with an ineradicable sensus deitatis which is quickened into action and informed by a rich revelation of God spread upon His works and embodied in His deeds, are yet held back from attaining a sound knowledge of God by the corruption of their hearts which dulls their instinctive sense of God and blinds them to His revelation in works and deeds.” [59] Summarizing Calvin’s view, he asserts this is essential to a right understanding of his “whole system of truth,” and, by necessary inference, this reflects his own appropriation of Calvin in his apologetics. As Paul Helseth maintains, Warfield drew upon Augustine’s “innate ideas” and Calvin’s epistemology and held that they “were essentially the same, simply because both acknowledge that God is not only the God of all grace and truth, but ‘the Light of all knowledge’ as well.” [60]

It is seen therefore that a point of contact with man’s reasoning capability is affirmed by à Brakel, Bavinck, and Warfield, in a direct line of influence from Calvin and in continuity with him.

Assessing Brakel’s Positive View Of Reason

Innate knowledge and the role of reason had a long history before Calvin, and à Brakel affirmed aspects of scholastic theology without succumbing to the intense objectifications of scholastic nominalism. He did this by affirming the priority of revelation and the work of the Spirit, just as Calvin taught. His great concern was neither scholastic nor philosophical. As a pastor/theologian, à Brakel sought to bring comfort to the struggling believer and assurance to the honest doubter. Unlike Descartes and his disciples, à Brakel was not seeking an irreducible principle of certitude, but a foundation for living blessedly before God. Finding true certitude is found not in a mathematically precise axiom or in the speculation of metaphysics, but in the grace initiated relationship with the God made known in the face of Jesus Christ revealed in the Scriptures. It was upon this unshakable ground that another French philosopher, Blaise Pascal, would write the following prayer, found after his death enclosed in the hem of his jacket with the date, Nov. 23, 1654: “Fire—God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of philosophers and scholars. Certainty, certainty, heartfelt joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ. God of Jesus Christ. My God and your God….” [61] This inner assurance is described by à Brakel as the ultimate purpose of innate knowledge sparked by God’s inward work of the revealed Word and the Holy Spirit.

The believing Christian is therefore to pass from outward certainty of who God is to an inward assured confidence that comes from a Spirit-graced experiential knowing. The Heidelberg Catechism expresses it thus: “Question 21: What is true faith? Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Ghost works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ‘s merits.” [62]

It is perhaps an important distinction to make between certitude and assurance or confidence. The quest for absolute philosophical certitude is seemingly an unattainable reach in considering the nature of infinite truth found in God. Such attempts often lead to idolatry. That this was true to both Scripture and Calvin is attested by T. F. Torrance in a statement almost doxological in tone:

Man is made to know God, so that he is not truly man unless he knows God. His whole manhood depends not only upon the grace of God in creation, but upon such a communication of his Word of grace that the image of God becomes engraved, as Calvin said, on his person. But we do not know God truly unless we know that our knowing is due to God alone; we must be able to trace the light back to its source in God, realizing that in so doing we are brought into immediate relation to the very fountain of life. Otherwise the light shines in the darknesss, and the darkness comprehends it not; but no man can be said to live, in the proper sense of the word, in that condition. True knowledge involves in the very act of knowing an acknowledgment that the Known is the Master of our life and that we depend entirely upon his grace in our being and knowing, and as such, it carries with it a profound knowledge of self. It is not the knowledge of self is in any sense a precondition of the knowledge of God, but that the knowledge of God has not really come home to us unless it has brought to us, in the realization of our utter dependence on the grace of God, a true knowledge of our own creaturehood. Therefore, we may say, man has been made in such a way that he is not truly man except in the realization of his creaturely dependence on the grace of God, and that he cannot retain his life except in a motion of thankful acknowledgement of the sheer grace of God as Creator and Father in whose Word man’s life is deposited, and in the continuous communication of which alone may life be possessed. [63]

In similar fashion, when defending the notion of innate knowledge, à Brakel sought not the certitude of philosophical speculation but a means to point to the absolute need of humility in coming before God. Innate knowledge was not a starting point from which natural reason can then ascend to the knowledge of God.

All truth is God’s truth, but His truth cannot be isolated into bare facts by men in white lab coats with axiomatic scalpels. Truth is about right knowing, and the certitude of faith is also a reasonable act of true worshippers. Assurance of faith through a reasonable and affective trust in God’s grace is the true aim of all right knowledge. As Blaise Pascal saw, truth is found only in Jesus Christ, as opposed to Descartes’s method of seeking epistemological certitude apart from God. “The Christian religion, then, teaches men these two truths; that there is a God whom men can know, and that there is a corruption in their nature which renders them unworthy of Him. It is equally important to men to know both these points; and it is equally dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness, and to know his own wretchedness without knowing the Redeemer who can free him from it. The knowledge of only one of these points gives rise either to the pride of philosophers, who have known God, and not their own wretchedness, or to the despair of atheists, who know their own wretchedness, but not the Redeemer.” [64] Finally, that the ground of certainty is not in our reasoning abilities is clearly affirmed by à Brakel when he states, “if one wishes to judge the matters revealed in God’s Word on the basis of one’s ability to comprehend clearly and discerningly and to accept only as truth that which can be comprehended, such a person must be called an atheist.” [65] It is highly plausible in this reference to atheism that à Brakel had Descartes in mind. The famous philosopher posits a view of God and even affirms a proof for His existence, but all such speculations are deduced from the innate idea of his own ability to doubt. Such a person in à Brakel’s view would be consigned to “remain a doubter all his life.” [66] A firmer foundation for thinking about God and knowing God through the certain knowledge is needed. Of this view, in line with classic Reformed anthropology, à Brakel is a worthy and faithful proponent.

Notes

1. “I think, therefore, I am” is found in Descartes’s Discourse on Method (1637), and is the classic expression for Cartesian epistemology that one cannot doubt the existence of one’s own thinking, even doubting self. This for him is the foundation for all true reasoning. He takes certainty away from a theological base, such as revelation.
2. For Aristotle, God is the unmoved mover or the highest perfect form to be conceived. This concept is a philosophical idea in metaphysics and is not the same as the revealed God of Scripture. However, his methodology was a help for classical theories and proofs for God’s existence by many theologians, especially Thomas Aquinas.
3. Wilhelmus à Brakel, A Christian’s Reasonable Service, ed. Joel Beeke, trans. Bartel Elshout (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 1999), cxvi.
4. The Dutch name of the work, A Christian’s Reasonable Service. Stoeffler notes that if it had not been for the language barrier, “he would have achieved the distinction of being one of the outstanding Pietistic theologians in Europe and America” (F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism. [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965], 15). Thankfully, this work, now translated into English, is enjoying a wider readership.
5. Robert W. Godfrey, “Calvin and Calvinism in the Netherlands,” in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 113.
6. F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, 115-16.
7. Albert Avey, Handbook in the History of Philosophy (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1954), 124.
8. Avey, Handbook in the History of Philosophy, 124.
9. Arie de Reuver, Sweet Communion: Trajectories of Spirituality from the Middle Ages through the Further Reformation, trans. James A. De Jong (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007) 167-68. He practiced a rigorous daily schedule of three periods of meditation, which included prayer and Bible reading, with restrictions on eating and sleeping. See especially de Reuver’s comment referring to Theodorus’s “almost monastic practice of contemplation” (282). This type of practice influenced by the Modern Devotion of Thomas á Kempis would continue to bear fruit in Dutch culture.
10. Reuver, Sweet Communion, 233.
11. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, xcv.
12. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, cv. “Dutch Second Reformation divines were united in emphasizing the importance of doctrine. Many of them (including even the Teellincks and the Brakels) viewed themselves as being free from ‘scholasticizing’ in formulating doctrine, but nevertheless did frequently utilize scholastic terms and methodology, as is abundantly evident in this translation of De Redelijke Godsdienst.”
13. Richard A. Muller, “Scholasticism, Reformation, Orthodoxy and the Persistence of Christian Aristotelianism,” Trinity Journal 19 (1998): 94.
14. “Rene Descartes.” Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s.v. “Rene Descartes,” http:// www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/158787/Rene-Descartes (accessed November 5, 2013).
15. Godfrey, “Calvin in the Netherlands,” 111.
16. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s.v. “Letter to Voetius,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/920169/Letter-to-Voetius (accessed November 05, 2013). This is evidenced in the famous letter Descartes wrote in response to Voetius’s attacks.
17. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s.v. “innate idea,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/288470/innate-idea (accessed November 04, 2013).
18. Jay Wood, Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1998), 80.
19. Wood, Epistemology, 78.
20. Belgic Confession of Faith, https://puritanseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Belgic-Confession-of-Faith.pdf (accessed November 11, 2013).
21. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:4-5.
22. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:5.
23. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:6.
24. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:9.
25. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:6.
26. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:6.
27. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:8.
28. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:8.
29. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:8.
30. Job 12:7-9.
31. Psalm 19:1-3.
32. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:8.
33. Diogenes Allen, Spiritual Theology (Boston: Cowley Publications, 1997), 141. This via negative is described by Princeton Seminary’s Professor of Philosophy as “we therefore have to negate or reject our affirmations because God surpasses anything that we can say about him.” One can appreciate the concern to honor God’s nature and transcendence in this method, but it leaves a weak understanding of the role of revelation in developing valid theological language
34. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:10.
35. Remembering how this style developed, the disputed point is first addressed with its stated objection and then the answer is given.
36. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:10.
37. For some historians, Spinoza is noted as the first to deny the supernatural character of the Bible; he was forced out of the synagogue for his radical beliefs. He certainly earned the title Father of Higher Criticism in spirit. He is usually classified more as a pantheist than an atheist because of his monistic view of nature and spirit. In his day, he was charged with atheism, which some rightly predicted would be the direction his disciples would lean.
38. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:12.
39. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:13.
40. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:13.
41. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:13.
42. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:14.
43. Diana Butler, “God’s Visible Glory: The Beauty of Nature in the Thought of John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 (1990): 25.
44. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:15.
45. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:16.
46. John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 37.
47. Richard Muller, “The Divine Essence and Attributes,” vol. 3 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to 1725 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 173
48. John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Louisville: Westminster, 2006), 37.
49. John Calvin, Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 71.
50. Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, trans. Battles, 1.3.2.
51. The Canons of Dordt, https://puritanseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Canons-of-Dort.pdf (accessed November 11, 2013).
52. Herman Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace” in Calvin and the Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 119.
53. Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” 114.
54. Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” 119
55. Quoted in Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia: P&R, 1975), 176. Van Til is well known for his departure from this line of Reformed or “classical” apologetics and maintains that these men moved away from Calvin towards the more Roman Catholic position put forth by Aquinas. This is still a highly debatable point but is outside the purview of this paper.
56. Nicholas Wolterstorff, “Herman Bavinck—Proto Reformed Epistemologist,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 133-46, 139. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed October 29, 2013).
57. B. B. Warfield, “Christianity the Truth” in Selected Shorter Writings, 2 vols., ed. John Meeter (Nutley, N.J.: P&R, 1970), 2:213. This is not in his view the use of bare reason on unregenerate and fallen minds without the aid and illumination of the Holy Spirit; Warfield held to the essential role of the Spirit’s work in applying right reason to the mind of unbelievers.
58. B. B. Warfield, “The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God” in Calvin and the Reformation, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 139.
59. Warfield, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Knowledge of God,” 201-2.
60. Paul K. Helseth, “A ‘Rather Bald’ Rationalist,” in B.B. Warfield: Essays on His Life and Thought (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 2007), 58.
61. Blaise Pascal, Pensees, 309, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees.pdf (accessed November 20, 2013).
62. Heidelberg Catechism, https://puritanseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/The-Heidelberg-Catechism.pdf (accessed November 11, 2013).
63. Thomas F. Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965, 1975) 101-2. Torrance states that this is characteristic of historic Reformed theology and of Calvin: “The whole of the Reformed doctrine of man is set forth in this context of grace and thanksgiving.”
64. Pascal, Pensees, 109.
65. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:316. “His darkened intellect will never acknowledge the perfection of God, the Holy Trinity, God’s influence in the preservation and governing of all things….” This points to the infallible ground of certitude to be found in Scripture’s revealed truth.
66. à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 1:316.