Review: A Sense of the Divine

A Sense of the Divine: An Affective Model of General Revelation from the Reformed Tradition
By N. Gray Sutanto
Cambridge University Press, 2025. 51 pages.

Every human being has a sense of something more, something transcendent. Christians historically have understood this as a sense of the divine. But what does this sense entail? In his recently published work, A Sense of the Divine: An Affective Model of General Revelation from the Reformed Tradition, Dr. N. Gray Sutanto, associate professor at Reformed Theological Seminary’s Washington D.C. campus, seeks to answer: “How should one make sense of the Christian confession that God has instilled a “sense of divinity” in every person?” (Abstract).

Sutanto suggests that there is consensus within the Christian tradition on a minimal doctrine of general revelation, which claims that “God has revealed himself through creation sufficiently, universally, and non-savingly to humanity, such that humanity is without excuse in its failure to acknowledge God as its creator sustainer, and judge” (pg. 8).

There are different understandings of the nature, origin, and man’s relationship with this revelation. Sutanto aims to defend the affective model, one account of general revelation. This model, derived from the Neo-Calvinist stream of the Reformed tradition, argues that the “natural knowledge of God is most foundationally non-propositional and affective, such that it produces a universal feeling or affect of the divine…” (pg. 3).

Sutanto’s account of the sense of the divine draws on Johan and Herman Bavincks’ respective readings of Romans 1. The Bavincks were relatives who were 20^th century Dutch Reformed theologians. Johan highlights the “possibility of a discrepancy between one’s explicit professions and behavior and the internal conditions that might drive them. The sense of the divine, repressed in one’s psyche, cannot be fully eradicated due to the persistence of general revelation” (11; emphasis added). On the other hand, “for [Herman] Bavinck, the feeling of absolute dependence is an effect of general revelation…In connection with Rom. 1:19-20, we feel ourselves dependent on God’s eternal power, for we have the intuition that God is the creator” (p.17). In short, this model argues that this sense of divinity, effected by general revelation, is prior to any conceptual knowledge about God and results in a feeling of dependence and vulnerability (pg. 43).

After presenting the affective model, Sutanto defends it on four primary grounds.

First, Sutanto argues that the account does justice to the biblical witness on general revelation. Drawing primarily from Psalm 19 and Romans 1, Sutanto claims that “God has revealed himself so clearly through creation that none can be excused by claiming ignorance” (1). He argues that “these witnesses from Scripture have led much of the Christian tradition to argue that prior to, and in distinction from, the disclosure of verbal revelation from the prophets or apostles, God has revealed God’s self in a universal way as the creator, sustainer, and judge of all that is not God. This teaching has come to be known and codified as the doctrine of natural or general revelation” (pg. 1). To Sutanto, the affective model best explains and defends these biblical witnesses.

Moreover, the biblical framework offered by this model stands supportive of, and not opposed to, the cognitive science of religion, which studies the mental workings underlying religious experiences and attitudes (pg. 22). Sutanto argues that the model also offers a better theological explication of the empirical findings of the cognitive science of religion, citing empirical studies which point to how the commonality of religious beliefs suggests that humans have evolved to produce these beliefs. He argues that the affective model appropriately opposes the interpretation that religious profession is identical to the sense of the divine: “However, the affective model suggests that the sense of divinity is not identical with the profession of propositions, and effectually persists even if no one professes belief in God…” (pg. 25).

While the affective model accords with this science, Sutanto argues it does not undermine the theological importance of the affective salience, or emotional weight, of general revelation. He contends that the model properly characterizes how sinners care about existential questions – guilt, meaning, injustice – due to their faulty suppression of their sense of the divine. To this point, Sutanto writes that “the empirical salience of the doctrine of general revelation is thus not primarily about the professions of belief that might be observed, but in the existential dimensions of human life – in its misdirected worship, fears and longings, and so on” (pg. 27).

No account of the sense of the divine would be complete without a thorough examination of rigorous objections, and it is to this task the Sutanto turns to in the final section of the book. He contends the model avoids influential objections raised to the doctrine of general revelation during the 20th century. Sutanto addresses objections from Karl Barth, Klaas Schilder and Ian McFarland, who each object to the the notion of the natural knowledge of God. Each of these thinkers’ arguments is vast and outside the scope of this brief article, but suffice it to say that Sutanto sees the affective model as unaffected by these objections.

Sutanto’s work is a thoughtful, cross-disciplinary academic exploration that integrates insights from theology, philosophy and cognitive science. The book is faithful to the confessions of the historic Church, particularly within the Reformed tradition, though Christians from all traditions would do well to consider its insights. Despite the book’s brevity, lay readers may still find it challenging to follow the breadth and rigor of thought. Nonetheless, Christians would benefit from reading this work for no other reason than that it demonstrates our need to share the Gospel, because every person stands in need of Christ because their natural knowledge of God as Creator and Judge implicates them.

More from IRD:

Thomas Cranmer and the Practices of Reformation Anglicanism

Scott Redd on Christian Views of National Security

The Question of the Biblical Canon