Quote:
Originally Posted by JDWiseman  In Romans 1, Paul states that the invisible things of God are clearly seen, and understood, through the created order. Without being sophistic, couldn't we agree that "clearly seeing" and "understanding" something, so much so that they are culpable for its rejection, is tantamount to "knowing"?
In chapter two, speaking of Gentiles who have not the law, and presumably mankind in general, bereft of the Scriptures, Paul states that they "by nature" are aware of moral standards of God, hence their conscience either excuses or accuses them.
According to Scripturalism, how could Gentiles, who don't have the Scriptures, "know" enough about God, and enough about His moral commands, to be found culpable in His sight?
Like I said, I realize you've probably heard it before; just wondering what your response would be. |
I want to thank you for not attempting to marshal Romans 1 as "proof" that empiricism, or, more specifically, "sensation," provides an alternate source of knowledge. The Scriptures do tell us that all men have a_priori equipment (no man is born a blank slate) and that certain truths or forms, including the law (Rom. 2:15), are revealed to all men and it's on this basis that all men are culpable. The Scriptures tell us that all men understand these truths and **in this sense all men know God.** The Scriptures also tell us that men apart from Christ do not know God or even the truth (see John 7:28, 1 Th 4:5 and elsewhere). That's why I think it is important to determine the sense in which men might be said to know and not know God. Jesus said; "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
I suppose the examples you cite are the reasons why the truth of the Gospel, and the truth of Scripture in general, is such an offense to the unbeliever. I suppose it also explains why when one comes to believe it's like having a light come on and all of a sudden things make sense. However, without acknowledging God unbelievers can provide no positive account for what they recognize inherently and for what they suppress. Knowledge
in the sense of having a justified true belief requires an account of the truth and this is something no man can give apart from God's Word and God's Spirit working through the Word. The entire history of philosophy provides example after example how men universally apart from Christ reject the truth and instead actively suppress it. Frankly, apart from revelation no man can come to know he even has any apriori or inherent equipment. Kant at least recognized the need for an apriori, but I don't think many here will argue that his categories successfully provided a basis by which truth might be known.
Hope that helps.