you say it’s exegetical but I reallly can’t see how you get this. Rom. 1, Acts 17? They don’t help at all for your position which, by the way, most theologians will not use to support your thesis. In Romans 1, the problem is that men and women constantly suppress their knowledge of God that can be rightly gained in some sort of general sense from GR alone. The wrath of God is continuously poured out because rejection is constant.

So no, you cannot say that man does not see the light nor hear th music; the exact reason they are condemned is because they do both. Let’s say you were at a concert with a huge floodlight aimed at your face: if you close your eyes do you still see the light? If you plug your ears do you still hear the music? The problem with the unregenerate is that they rightly understand GR but suppress it in sin.

God’s condemnation presupposes a natural knowledge of God.

“I do believe we would disagree that people have natural knowledge of God (?). How can this be? Do you wholly deny this, I don’t understand your position here.”

This pertains to the noetic effects of the Fall. Yes I wholly deny this. My justification and basis for denial is purely exegetical. Basically, my position is that prior to the application of the soteriological element of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, man is in total, pitch-black darkness. While the light (GR)is beaming and the music (GR)blasting, the unregenerate man says he sees nothing and nor does he hear anything. He suppresses the truth in his thinking and cannot help it. Only the Holy Spirit can reverse this effect of sin.

“…but are they not servants in the same manner as they are in helping us understand SR?”

Oh yes! God expects for us to use what He has given us for His glory. As long as the statement above reads *helping* us and nothing further, then there is no conflict with biblical Christianity. I agree with your last statement Sam. We musn’t ignore them. We are to *taste and see* that the Lord is good. We are to worship God with *all* of who we are. Like Mig said in our Sunday Seminary class a couple of months ago, *Are you worshipping God with your emotions? He demands all of your worship.* – not an actual quote, but a recall from memory. Paul was reasoning *from the Scriptures* – the author of Hebrews and Luke used pristine logic, etc.

I do believe we would disagree that people have natural knowledge of God (?). How can this be? Do you wholly deny this, I don’t understand your position here.

And you say they are servants; this i understand, but are they not servants in the same manner as they are in helping us understand SR? Again my whole point was the overall tone about discounting anything extrabiblical prima facie. But now that we have conclded that they are reliable sometimes even before looking at Scripture, then we cannot easily ignore them, would you agree?

P.S. cool, he and his bro came over to visit my semi-bedridden self today and dropped off gamecube games and movies for me. haha.

“Now is it the case that our rationality, like our intuitions and experience, should be reliable because of the image of God even after factoring in sin?”

Well, they can be reliable as well as unreliable. They also require an interpretation. A good question to ask is, reliable according to what? Where shall the interpretation come from? God has revealed: “There is a way that seems right to a man but its end is the way to death” (Prov. 14:12, 16:25). “Do not lean on your own understanding” (Prov. 3:5b). The natural mind is unable to discern good from evil. In order to remain obedient to God, one of the principles we must adhere to is the proper role that our rationality, intuitions, and experience must function within – as servants to revelation. If we attempt to reverse the roles and make revelation a servant to the aforementioned aspects of man, we end in idolatry, heresy, and ultimately – death.

P.S. Mig had many nice things to say about you – I chatted him up a bit last night at the apologetics class