biblicalthought.com

Dr. Bob,

Didn’t Adam and Eve figure out God’s commands by putting their ears up to the tree trunk and or sitting in a dark room reasoning about what to believe and how to live?

Oh yeah! You have already pointed us to the simple Biblical answer that if God had not spoken and revealed himself verbally to man we would not be able to know specifically what to believe about God or how to live to please Him. You would think that Christians would figure this out by reading the first book of the Bible but obviously it’s not so clear (or “universal”) seeing that there are countless Christian leaders who teach natural theology and natural law. While they have their ears up to the sycamore tree’s and rocks we will examine scripture alone for what to believe and how to live.

Your upcoming book on Natural Theology is especially needed in a day when Plato and Aristotle are more respected amongst Christians than Calvin and Luther. Thank you for your clear Biblical correction and teaching.

Steve,

You have to remember that in context of Rom 1 all mankind has been given the general revelation of God. That does not mean that every person has a knoweldge of God that can reveal God to them. That is to say that man cannot know the One and True God unless they have been given specific revelation.

We cannot know the truths about God, His attributes, truth, word, works, etc… unless He reveals them to us. We cannot “reason” God out of nature and know the True God (that is who He is and salvific faith) without His specific revelation. If we “know” God from “reason” then we will only know god (notice the capitalization).

We can indeed prove the existance of God through nature (General Revelation), but as Dr. Morey pointed out that is different from “Natural Theology.”

“NT: Sure I can! If I abandon the Biblical Box and move over to a non-Christian Box like the Greek Philosophers, then I can think outside the Christian Box. I will adopt the ideas of Thales, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers. They will be my mentors. Then, beginning with those pagan ideas, I will intellectually argue my way back to the Biblical Box.”

Straw man. Look it up in your list of logical fallacies. Next time, I can cite the fallacy in Latin to impress the masses.

Dr Bob,
Are there nuances to the way different people or traditions define Natural Theology? It seems that the medieval scholastics had a different project in mind than the natural theologians of the Enlightenment. The former were trying to show the internal rationality of the faith and did not have the skeptical audience that the latter did. The Enlightenment natural theologians were trying to prove God’s existence to a skeptical and unbelieving audience (they failed), which ultimately paved the way for Deism. I agree that Natural Theology that is based on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics is false, but there is a place for showing the internal rationality of the faith or faith seeking understanding, that is. Did not Calvin and Luther speak of Natural Law? In fact, Calvin spends some time unpacking it in Book I of the Institutes. Clearly, they meant something different than the scholastics and the humanist theologians. But, was it a “natural theology” or a believer “reasoning from General revelation?” Did they mean General Revelation when they said natural theology or natural law? Dr. Bob (or anyone else), can you help me unpack and clarify these questions? Always reforming!
Peter

Hello Dr. Morey,

How do you suppose the Reformers would respond to this notion? R.C. Sproul deems it in accordance to Reformed thinking.

Did the Reformers confront this? Since Deism is the consistent source of natural theology, the closest Reformers to confront this would have been the Puritians. Do you agree?

1) So which is it? Do the Puritians/Reformers support Sproul/Natural Theology, or do they support your position?

2) Is it more “Calvinisitc” to embrace natural theology as Sproul says or is it more Calvinistic to deny it?

3) Sproul equates natural theology almost identically to General Revelation. While you would convey this as a categorical fallacy, why?

Jean Cauvin

Agilius doesn’t understand the argument.

Agilius,

How would it be self defeating if one claims to have knowledge of an epistemological assumption that either has existed or presently exists wherein biblical pollution is entirely absent?

You appear to be misinterpreting the argument that acknowledges that the concepts of God held by the “born-in-the-box” person are not the same concepts shared among those “born-outside-the-box.” It doesn’t seem to be an argument saying “that Biblical knowledge removes the ability to perceive from an unbibiblical perspective.” He seems to be saying that the person’s epistemological base has so thoroughly been infested with, and permeated by the Bible that it is impossible for a true detachment for even a moment in order to function intellectually.

That being the case, any “theology” produced by an “in-the-boxer” cannot be “natural…”

I think it’s a good point based on keen observation.

>> You appear to be misinterpreting the argument that acknowledges that the concepts of God held by the “born-in-the-box” person are not the same concepts shared among those “born-outside-the-box.”

You can’t know that the concepts are not the same unless you know what those concepts are. And if you know what concepts belong “outside-the-box”, then you can’t claim that exposure to “in-the-box” concepts has tainted your ability to reason from either perspective - you have access to both sets of concepts.

Sir Aaron,

That’s fair.

And today some reject the truth by claiming that the scientific laws which god created prove that a deity is not necessary to account for all that exists.

And since they are referencing scientific laws which they do not know were set up by the god of the Bible, insomuch as they reference the truth we must grant them that which they already have.

But since they have been deceived into believe that the laws of science, which god created, actually prove that god is not required to account for all that exists, Christianity can never be proven true, in their estimation, until they believe that a god is necessary to account for all that exists.

This is where Intelligent Design and your so-called “Natural” Theologians come in; And to be sure, the *only* purpose of “Natural” Theology [not as defined by Dr. Morey] and Intelligent Design is to facilitate the debunking of this single roadblock.

Christianity is based on certain truths; So before you can prove that Christianity is true, you must first prove that the foundations of Christianity are sound and build a case from there. Consequently, since the foundations of Christianity are not Christianity, themselves, Christianity, per se, cannot be used to prove the foundations. This is true whether you start from a Christian perspective or not.

Stephen,
I would love to hear your thoughts on some of the questions I raised above. I realized after reading another post that Dr. Bob is busy with the book editing and revision. It has been a while since we last talked. I think it was at Danny’s wedding. Email me if you want to catch up.

>> Hi Agilius, when the apostle said “I determined to know nothing among you but Christ and Him crucified”, I believe this contrary to what you are saying here:

Nearly the entire book of Romans is given to arguing for the gospel to the Jews - not just from the text of Scripture, but from rules of logic and language not formally taught in Scripture [that is to say; though exemplified in Scripture, they weren't taught, but merely assumed to be known by the reader]; so when Paul says he determined to know nothing but Christ crucified, he is not saying that he offered no arguments.

How else do you expect to be able to tell the difference between false prophets and teachers? They claim to be using the same Bible as you, so what do you do then? The answer is that you have to understand parsing [not unique to the Bible] and logic [not unique to the Bible, and I would add the god of the Bible].

The truth of Christianity is a conclusion we want others to come to - we don’t want them to accept *anything* willy-nilly, because you can’t have biblical faith if it’s a blind faith.

Agilius,

Regarding blind faith, aren’t you operating on blind faith in the sufficiency of human autonomy?

Stephen,
“I said: “I agree that Natural Theology that is based on Aristotelian or Platonic metaphysics is false, but there is a place for showing the internal rationality of the faith or faith seeking understanding, that is.”
“You said:We first need to establish the metaphysical assumptions behind this.”
Good point. Some things that I am not assuming: First, I am not assuming that one needs to test doctrines by the bar of Reason before believing them or something of that sort. Second, I think there are problems with a foundational approach to epistemology or any natural epistemology, for that matter. While I think that there are some true elements in many theories of Epistemology, I recognize that they are indeed fallible human projects.
Do I think we need a coherent, reliable, truth aimed starting point? Yes, and I think the Bible gives us that. What I meant by “showing the internal rationality of the faith,” is that the Biblical portrait of reality makes sense. Many Christians think that faith is a vacuous leap in the dark. However, faith has an epistemic component. Our faith is strengthened by the evidence that we have in both General and Special revelation. I understand that Dr. Bob uses evidential arguments at times to buttress the revealed truths of Scripture, and I am all for that. But, as Dr. Bob points out, I believe the Scriptures even when reason fails to understand everything exhaustively or where reason falls short, thus faith plumbs the depths of many mysteries of revealed truth.
In a sense, if theology is reasoning about God from the scriptures, can we not say there is a place for that in our approach to General Revelation? As Calvin has said, the universe is the theater of God’s glory. I think that we need to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. General Revelation does communicate things about God, as the scriptures point out (Rom. 1, Ps. 19). Now, clearly the natural man rejects General revelation and suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, but there is a real sense in which His invisible attributes are clearly seen by the things that are made. Or, to more clearly quote Paul, “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 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. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”
Thus, General Revelation is clearly communicating things about God that are being rejected by the natural man. We all agree that General Revelation is sufficient to condemn man for rejecting the God who is, was, and always will be. However, what do you make of the language, “is plain to them,” or “God has shown it to them”, or “have been clearly perceived?” Can the believer reasonable argue from General Revelation that God exists? The believer looks at creation and sees His handiwork everywhere; the theater of His glory, as the great reformer once said. Can we discern and argue from that which is clearly evident, although mediated through the creation? This may not be convincing to unbelievers who suffer from epistemic depravity and blindness, but can and does it encourage the believer?
My above questions were: Are there nuances to the way different people or traditions define Natural Theology? Did not Calvin and Luther speak of Natural Law? In fact, Calvin spends some time unpacking it in Book I and II of the Institutes. Clearly, they meant something different than the scholastics and the humanist theologians. But, was it a “natural theology” or a believer “reasoning from General revelation?” Did they mean General Revelation when they said natural theology or natural law? Are there any problems with their views?
Ultimately, my thinking on these issues is always reforming as I study the Scripture and dialogue with others. So, that is my reason for asking these questions bro. Also, just because I ask the question does not necessarily mean I endorse its theological flavor. It may be asked for further understanding on that issue, and the only way to get that is to state it with the force of its advocates.

Stephen…funny I was just talking to Lil’Sis about this subject last night!

Stephen:”Yes. I am no longer worried or afraid of departing from the reformers where they were clearly wrong. Minor deconstructive efforts lead to the discovery of unbiblical philosophic assumptions they held (consciously or not), and based on their soteriological and anthropological statements repeated in many of their works, my guess is that they would have abandoned them had they had more time – or had they been shown their errors from Scripture! They probably would have laughed at their ridiculous interpretation of Romans 2:15 that “God’s law is written on the heart of all men of all time.” Just because they believed some things doesn’t mean we should too (like the perpetual virginity of Mary).”

I have learned this concept from study, from Dr. Bob and from you. It is important to grasp that we always “reform” TO Scripture and not to man! It will save much grief to hold this view. I will say it has it’s own frustrations however, due to those you may be debating who want you in a certain box (ie “Reformed”, “Protestant”, “Calvinist”,etc) and refuse to believe that you cannot be pigeon-holed.

We were discussing, last night, that it is amazing that the Reformers really “got it” on grace and other important fundamentals but so did not “get it” when it came to Mary, Lord’s Table etc…

Learning much from this thread…

Thanks Peter! I enjoyed our time of “Christian fellowship” when we hung out that night. I’m really thankful to God for keeping you in the faith. We’ll continue to pray for you as we’re reminded - Oh, and congratulations! Say hi to your new wife for us…

>> Regarding blind faith, aren’t you operating on blind faith in the sufficiency of human autonomy?

Insomuch as I have exercised my god-given human autonomy, correctly, I would say that it precludes me operating by blind faith.

>> We first need to establish the metaphysical assumptions behind this. While it is clear that you reject Aristotelian and Platonic metaphysics, it is not clear which metaphysical assumptions you do hold that establish the foundation for your epistemological assumptions. I think this is necessary before discussing rationality, faith, understanding. etc…

Since the Bible doesn’t teach us that we must first establish the metaphysical assumptions behind the belief that there is rationality behind Christian religious claims, you are proving my point (and Peter’s) that rationality is not unique to the Bible, nor, by extension, the Christian experience.

>> To simplify things, I would say that the biblical presuppositions of someone born “in-the-box” affect the premises and conclusions of their arguments to the point where Special Revelation is ultimately credited, not the ambiguous “nature” so highly regarded in humanist philosophies.

A quick point on the “ambiguous nature” referenced by proponents of “natural” theology:

By “nature” we mean Creation per se; That is, those things which are unique to Creation.

By “natural theology” (again, not defined by Dr. Morey), we mean those things which prove anything pertaining to deity, which are available for everyone to examine. Note that this definition need not include the claim to a solution for the problem of evil, as was mischaracterized in the blog.

By “Intelligent Design” we mean that the universe was intentionally created - nothing more. And as was stated earlier, Intelligent Design has only one goal: to prove to atheists and agnostics that the universe was intelligently created (i.e. god exists) - because it is their belief that god does not exist which keeps them from even *considering* that Christianity might be true.

Again, Natural Theology and Intelligent Design are *not* meant to solve the problem of evil. That’s a different issue which *only* can be solved with Biblical truths.

I appreciate the definition. There is much equivocation with “nature.”

>> In order to determine whether “natural theology” is valid, we must look to those that were never polluted by Special Revelation and see if they (in their complete isolation from special revelation) have identified and established the existence of God.

No, all you need to do is ask a proponent of Natual Theology what his reasoning is, and then test his reason against logic.

>> Hi Agilius, I agree with what you say about the apostles activity and the rich display of logical argumentation that is evident in the book of Romans, but Paul reasoned from the scriptures–the OT.

I agree that Paul reasoned from the OT Scriptures, and that the Jews [and similarly, the Gentiles, for that matter] could not come to Christ without the revelation from the Scriptures.

But Paul didn’t just quote a set of Biblical facts; he reasoned. He employed rulef of logic, which are available to everyone.

It’s not that unbelievers *can’t* reason, but that they refuse to do so when it comes to Biblical truths. Different issue.

>> Unregenerated and reprobate man will always “reason” against belief, his mind will be faithful to his heart which is dead to God.

Well, I would make a distinction between reprobate man’s unsuccessful attempt at reasoning against belief, and a successful attempt. It’s not that reprobate man’s attempt is *actually* reasonable - indeed, that they are being illogical can be shown -, but, rather, that they have failed in their supposed attempt to conform to reason.

Christian children fail to reason, too; Failed attempts at reason are not unique to the unregenerate.

>> That doesn’t solve the problem, it only complicates it. Now you show you’re operating on blind faith that you have “god-given human autonomy.”
>>
>> Where does that idea come from?
>>
>> Sounds very fideistic…

I think this is where I’m supposed to say *you’re* operating on blind faith that I’m operating on blind faith that I have “god-given human autonomy”?

Anyway, since god created us, why *wouldn’t* human autonomy be god-given?

And my position is decidedly UNfideistic.

>> I appreciate the definition. There is much equivocation with “nature.”

May I ask what you took “nature” to mean?

Stephen,
Would you grant this or do you take issue with it?
Agilius said: “Now sin keeps man from accepting Biblical truths, but it does not keep them from giving intellectual assent to them. It’s not that they are incapable of coming to the understanding that Biblical claims are true (except in the rare occasion when god blinds certain people), but that they are unwilling to conform to the Bible”

Hi Peter!

>>>Would you grant this or do you take issue with it?
Agilius said: “Now sin keeps man from accepting Biblical truths, but it does not keep them from giving intellectual assent to them. It’s not that they are incapable of coming to the understanding that Biblical claims are true (except in the rare occasion when god blinds certain people), but that they are unwilling to conform to the Bible”

*I would take a strong position of disagreement, theologically.

I would need to know more about how he is distinguishing acceptance of Biblical truths from intellectual assent of Biblical truths.

I would extend the effects of sin to beyond only Biblical truths, and based on his delineation of truth, I may have other disagreements (my position is radically Christian, according to most).

And obviously (**Calvinist Alert!) I disagree with the last anthropological statement. I’d say that they are incapable based on Scripture. I have Scripture references for all of these, btw.

But Agilius doesn’t have to be a Calvinist for me to love him like a brother. Most of this is non-essential anyway…

Agilius,

You’re Cartesian epistemology will deceive you, if it hasn’t already. Hard-core rationalism like the brand you are peddling will lead you into immense spiritual suffering - you will leave the faith (which means you may not be in it now).

If one can be argued in, s/he can be argued out. Folks, Christianity doesn’t work this way.

Now I’m worried about you…

I’ll pick the rest of this up later, folks.

Thanks for the discussion. Good topic.

Hi Peter!

I’m sure you’ll have particular, more narrowed questions on this, but let me try to do some patchwork and we’ll see which questions are left.

First, we must understand what is meant by “law.” Paul is referring to Torah. He is saying that the Gentiles do not have the Torah to guide them on how to live. Let us not confuse Torah here with Decalogue. Torah is the whole Law which governs what to eat, how to cut your hair, how to select a spouse, how to go to the bathroom, etc. The Torah sat in judgment over all of life. It either accused or excused the behavior of the Jew.

Paul explicitly states that Gentiles do not have the Torah, a truth that was celebrated in the OT. What is in view is the function of the Torah, not the contents of the Torah. Paul says that the Gentiles’ conscience takes the place of the Torah by sitting in judgment over what s/he thinks, does, says, etc. When he says that the *work* of the Law is written on *their* hearts, he is referring to the function of the Torah in some Gentiles (not all).

From the text we can rule out any interpretation that confuses the Law with the Decalogue, any interpretation that says it is written on the hearts of some Gentiles, any interpretation that says this passage is universal in scope (Gentiles in v.14 does not have definite article), any interpretation that has the contents of the Law in view, or that all people of all time in all places share a universal moral code that is consistent with the Torah.

Gentiles without Torah have in the place of Torah a moral code of their own that their conscience bears witness to. Their conscience is what accuses or excuses their deeds, thoughts, etc. But since their conscience is uninformed of the righteousness according to God’s standards, and because of sin, their conscience can excuse the behavior that the Law condemns, and vice versa. What the heathen see as right and wrong is not what really is right and wrong. It is only right or wrong *to them.*

I hope this helps. It is a clean interpretation that is exegetically verifiable, void of hermeneutical violations, fallacies, etc. Dr. Morey devotes an entire chapter to this subject in his new book on natural law & theology. He has helped me understand this by providing the most powerful exegesis on Rom. 2 I have ever seen. I told him that it is the best work in church history on this. It’s like 100 pages or so…

Hi Stephen, thanks for that bit on Rom 2. I wanted to add that this chapter is laying out a case for judgement. The Gentiles are just as guilty of judging–thus condemning themselves based on the law written on thier hearts. This knowledge or moral code written on the heart indeed has not vindicated them at all, it just has eliminated any chance of innocence by way of ignorance. No one is ignorant in regards to the case they make against themselves.

I wanted to make a response to Agilius even if he’s gone for now. He seems to me to be making an error in assuming that everyone deals with arguementation the same. He seems to deny that born again ones and reprobate/unregenerated have equal opportunity to understand the things of God. Any man who’s dead to God has the same reasoning capacity to intellectually evaluate information using logic to arrive at what he believes is the truth. He gets his worldview from this process, but reasons against faith because it agrees with his stony heart. A mountain of sound logical apologetic information even properly understood, will still be rejected in the heart of this man. It doesn’t agree with his inner man, his true self. This man needs to be preached to, not argued with.

Here’s where the misunderstanding comes in, I think. A man comes to faith, and he says I believe because I heard arguement A. He believes that he was convinced to believe because of arguement A when in fact he believes arguement A because he had been born again first. It appears to be that the arguement A convinced him, but the scriptures teach us that without the Spirit of God, he would’ve rejected arguement A because in his heart of hearts arguement A was foolishness to him. Natural theology if you will, is of benefit to believers only, in that they have opportunity to think God’s thoughts after Him.

Brad B

Brad,
You said, “I wanted to add that this chapter is laying out a case for judgement. The Gentiles are just as guilty of judging–thus condemning themselves based on the law written on thier hearts. This knowledge or moral code written on the heart indeed has not vindicated them at all, it just has eliminated any chance of innocence by way of ignorance. No one is ignorant in regards to the case they make against themselves.”

Brad, the way I understand Stephen, I think he disagrees with the idea that a universal moral code or law is written on the Gentile hearts.

He says, “First, we must understand what is meant by “law.” Paul is referring to Torah. He is saying that the Gentiles do not have the Torah to guide them on how to live. Let us not confuse Torah here with Decalogue. Torah is the whole Law which governs what to eat, how to cut your hair, how to select a spouse, how to go to the bathroom, etc. The Torah sat in judgment over all of life. It either accused or excused the behavior of the Jew.

Paul explicitly states that Gentiles do not have the Torah, a truth that was celebrated in the OT. What is in view is the function of the Torah, not the contents of the Torah. Paul says that the Gentiles’ conscience takes the place of the Torah by sitting in judgment over what s/he thinks, does, says, etc. When he says that the *work* of the Law is written on *their* hearts, he is referring to the function of the Torah in some Gentiles (not all).

From the text we can rule out any interpretation that confuses the Law with the Decalogue, any interpretation that says it is written on the hearts of some Gentiles, any interpretation that says this passage is universal in scope (Gentiles in v.14 does not have definite article), any interpretation that has the contents of the Law in view, or that all people of all time in all places share a universal moral code that is consistent with the Torah.”

Stephen’s view seems to be that Scripture is showing that the Gentiles have created their own moral code uniformed by the Torah, and thus it is fallible in nature. He does not advocate a universal moral code in all the Gentiles, if I understood him right. What do you mean by written law or code on the Gentile hearts? I am just curious?

Hi Stephen, you said this earlier:

>>>Agilius,

You’re Cartesian epistemology will deceive you, if it hasn’t already. Hard-core rationalism like the brand you are peddling will lead you into immense spiritual suffering - you will leave the faith (which means you may not be in it now).

If one can be argued in, s/he can be argued out. Folks, Christianity doesn’t work this way.

Now I’m worried about you…>>>

Sobering.
Also, this is why there is a modern crisis of faith I think. People trying to rest on what they have done, believed, rationally understood–all byproducts of a semi-Pelagian scheme. Not to say that some aren’t genuine saints, but saints that are not resting from works and not feeling safe.

Brad B

>> Here’s where the misunderstanding comes in, I think. A man comes to faith, and he says I believe because I heard arguement A. He believes that he was convinced to believe because of arguement A when in fact he believes arguement A because he had been born again first.

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Rom. 10:13-14 (KJV)

When Paul asks “how”, he is being rhetorical.

They cannot call on Jesus if they have not believed he is Savior. And if they cannot call on Jesus, then they cannot be saved.

They cannot believe in Jesus if they haven’t even heard of him. They cannot hear about Jesus unless someone preaches him.

So salvation comes after intellectual assent. Therefore our part is to argue to the point of intellectual assent, and god’s part is to grant the capacity to faith [sic] in Christ.

Hi Agilius, there is a difference between preaching and apologetics. I think you confuse the two. Preaching is proclaiming the gospel, what God did. It is not an appeal, invitation, discussion. It is a statement with power, calling men, He’s not begging, he’s commanding. Apologetics is for the benefit of men who do have spiritual discernment–men who are born again need to have reasons-not to believe in their hearts, but to believe in their minds so that the live like they believe.

Please read the whole of Eph 4, but I’m giving you these to make a point.

Eph 4:11 And He gave some {as} apostles, and some {as} prophets, and some {as} evangelists, and some {as} pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.
Eph 4:14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;

Phillip said an old phrase earlier in this thread “faith seeking understanding”. Here in Eph 4, is the Word of God laying out the truth of this statement. Faith is a logic in the heart of born again ones, it is God logic–His gift to His own. It compels us to see the world through the lens that sees the things of the Spirit as true. Intellectually, we dont grasp them right away this is why God gave preachers, pastors, teachers, for the buiding up of the saints. Read: be ye transfromed by the renewing of your mind. The heart already has God logic, the mind is behind the curve, polluted and broken. Conditioned to see the world like dead men do, the new born Christian has little intellectual ammunition. He just somehow begins to question his long held belief that says “there is no god”. At some point he necessarily says “I believe” if indeed he has the Spirit of God.

Brad B

Brad,
Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

You said, “It seems pretty clear that Stephen rightly argues that the Gentiles have no special revelation [at that time, the OT or even just the 10 Commandments] I think the above scripture is describing an essential human characteristic of being an image bearer. Everyman knows the wrongness of murder without the Law and other offenses against men in varying degrees carry similar convicting intuitions. This is where the conscience of those unfamiliar with any special revelation still condemn themselves. They judge others while they commit simliar offenses, which is what the case earlier in Rom 2 is saying.”

I was just talking with a theology Prof today about this very idea, and he thinks it seems to fit well with the data in Rom. 1 & 2. I’m interested to hear Stephen weigh in on this notion, as well as maybe unpacking what he meant by the “moral code” a bit more.

Hi again Agilius and Phillip. I guess I dont want to let it go by without highlighting that born again people and unregenerated have equal reasoning ability in general. But what they do with the information is altogether a different matter. It goes down to the nature after the mind is through making sense out of the “facts” as they see them. A unregenerated man can evaluate a set of truth claims and if those claims contain information that is spiritually discerned, he will conclude with a different result than one who has “eyes to see and ears to hear”. It is a necessary characteristic of being born again–this having eyes and ears tuned to spirituall discerned truths. A born again mans mind inclines to conclude in agreement with belief where the unregenerated does not because of the Spirit of God gives us God’s use of logic to counter against worldly use of logic. This is why arguementation is worthless to unregenerated–HE WONT BELIEVE BECAUSE HE CANT BELIEVE in his condition. This type of being needs to hear the gospel preached, and dont misunderstand me, I’m not just saying from pulpits, I talking about the preaching each of us does as we live out our faith before the world. A faithfully preached message is delivered with love and care–whether the reciever gets it [understands it] or not, it is our duty.

Phillip, I want to ask you to consider that apologetics is 100 percent defensive and if an unregenerated man cannot discern things of the spirit, how in the world can defending them him help? It would be unreasonable to expect this to produce true belief and it’s contrary to scripture.

Brad B

Brad,
I’m inclined to agree with most of what you said above, but I have a couple of things to add. I think apologetics is primarily defensive, and 1 Peter. 3:15 makes this clear, however, I think there is a place for offensive attacks in our defense strategy. Preemptive strikes, so to speak. Apologetics can be useful to tear down arguments and systems of other worldviews, and therefore, can be offensive in this sense. Dr. Bob mentions in his lectures that he likes to go on the offensive when doing apologetics, instead of trying to put out fires all the time. Hence, the idea of presuppositional apologetics.

However, Brad, I do agree that apologetics cannot save anyone. Preach.