For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. (Rom 1:18)Ouch! I thought we were going to "good news." Now we're at "the wrath of God"? So, Paul, what truth is suppressed that makes God so angry?
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 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. (Rom 1:19-20)Interesting. According to Paul, there is no such thing as an atheist. All we have are ... liars. Why would I say such a thing? It says, "What can be known about God is plain to them." Why? "Because God has shown it to them." He concludes, "They are without excuse." So here's the real question. What can be known about God and how has He made it known?
He made it known "in the things that have been made." It's called "Natural Revelation." David wrote about it. "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims His handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. (Psa 19:1-3) Simply put, "Look around you!" But what can be known from that source of revelation? Paul said, "His eternal power and divine nature." Okay, good! Some of that is easy. Look around and you will see that it took some serious power to make all that is -- power we can't even comprehend. And knowledge. Even the ardent atheist can hardly resist referring to the universe as "designed." And what design? Beauty, practicality, intricacy, wonder upon wonder. My doctor told me this week that there are 13 components in the blood to get it to produce a scab -- that thing that prevents you from bleeding to death at the drop of a hat but doesn't cause your blood to harden in the body. Irreducible complexity! Design. Smart God. We know that God is gracious because of the rain that falls on the good and the wicked. Natural Revelation tells us that this God is worth our ultimate attention. There is none like Him. Creation tells us that God is uncreated (Acts 17:24), the Creator (Acts 14:15), the Sustainer (Acts 14:16; 17:25), the universal Lord (Acts 17:24), self-sufficient (Acts 17:25), transcendent (Acts 17:24), imminent (Acts 17:26–27), eternal (Ps. 93:2), great (Ps. 8:3–4), majestic (Ps. 29:4), powerful (Ps. 29:4; Rom. 1:20), wise (Ps. 104:24), good (Acts 14:17), and righteous (Rom. 1:32); He has a sovereign will (Acts 17:26), and should be worshiped (Acts 14:15;17:23) ... for starters.
What don't we learn from Natural Revelation? We don't learn the law (Psa 19:7-9) -- God's standards for right and wrong. Without that, we don't learn about God's mercy, not knowing how far off we are. We can't know the Trinity. We don't learn about Jesus who was sent, the Scriptures tell us, by God. We wouldn't be aware of salvation in Christ. These kinds of things require words to explain them. That's called "Special Revelation." In former times it came through prophets and apostles. Now it's found in the Scriptures. Natural Revelation, then, has its limits. So if you're happy with God's power and knowledge and beauty and wisdom and grace, but don't really need mercy or salvation, I suppose you can wing it without the Bible. Of course, given Paul's premise -- that we suppress the truth about God -- I'll wish you good luck with that because it won't likely end well.
6 comments:
I wonder if this post was "on deck" anyway, or inspired by the exchange that concluded with this comment of yours:
"Paul is clear that God has revealed Himself in what He made. Obviously people believed in God long before Scriptures existed. So belief in God without Scriptures isn't impossible. (In fact, Paul says it's a given and the only way not to do so is to lie (Rom 1:18-20).) But what we know about God through nature is not sufficient to, for instance, have saving faith in Christ."
4/20/2021 7:10 AM
If we believe God worked miracles since the Fall, that He had actual interaction with people as described in the OT, we can accept the possibility that knowledge of Him would have been passed down through the generations had that interaction not been recorded in Scripture. To what extent it would have been done so accurately is another thing altogether, though I suspect that He would have seen to it that it was or possibly His direct interactions would have continued at least until the time of Christ on earth.
But without that interaction, there would be no Scripture in any form and nothing to pass down from generation to generation. We would have been left with only "Natural Revelation". Would anyone have recognized it? We know different cultures throughout human history worshiped deities of their own making based on their cultural speculations regarding human origin. There would have been some form of speculation in place of what was learned of God as a result of His direct interactions, and that might have been passed down. But would it have been clear to us "that God has revealed Himself in what He made"? Could anyone have said this without Paul having told us and our learning in Scripture that God revealed Himself in this way? Would it have occurred to anyone beyond some nagging suspicion that someone is responsible for creating all things?
I've had Rom 1:19-20 thrown in my face when I've insisted on the value of Scripture as being our primary and most important source of our knowledge of God and Christ and what is expected of us as believers and against which all our beliefs and behaviors must be weighed. I contend that we only know what Rom 1:19-20 teaches us is true because it's part of Scripture itself. It's hard to imagine that too many of us would have any knowledge of the "God" as described in Scripture without Scripture despite what It says about Natural Revelation, apart from His direct interactions being handed down through the generations accurately.
(As a sidebar, the person with whom I've had this little debate rejects teachings such as "Penal Substitution" as "human invention" rather than simply names applied to true and actual teachings of Scripture. Scripture doesn't mention, "Natural Revelation", either, but he evidently believes in it because of Rom 1:19-20. I wonder if he'd call "Natural Revelation" a human invention as well.)
I’d suggest that without explaining the potential bad news, that the Good News, is stripped of its goodness.
I suspect that’s why there is such a commitment to embrace Materislism/Naturalism. If we can reduce the complexity of nature to a meaningless, random, unguided process then we can actively hide that which points to God and His special revelation.
"I wonder if this post was "on deck" anyway, or inspired by the exchange that concluded with this comment of yours."
Yes, I write these things in advance when I can, so sometimes my comments are influenced by something I've written for a week from now and sometimes something I've written for a week from now is inspired by comments.
"I've had Rom 1:19-20 thrown in my face when I've insisted on the value of Scripture as being our primary and most important source of our knowledge ..."
Isn't that odd? The source of the idea of "Natural Revelation" comes from the Scriptures which they are refuting as the best source for knowledge of God and Christ.
"I wonder if he'd call "Natural Revelation" a human invention as well."
The double standard of "That's a man-made notion when I disagree with it but clearly biblical when I agree" is simply painful to watch. "Doesn't that hurt your brain?"
Speaking of materialism/naturalism, did you see they stripped Richard Dawkins of his Humanist award because he stuck to materialism/naturalism instead of buying into gender-identity arguments? So-called "freethinkers" aren't so free after all, apparently.
Yes, the aim is to diminish God at any point, and diminishing the problem of sin is key to that effort.
Natural Revelation reveals God without Scripture telling us it does because the fact that there is a God is evident in the fact of the prolific expanse of gods in all religions throughout time. They all looked at nature and realized there was Something greater out there. But because they didn't have the Word, which includes the oral passing prior to the written Scriptures, they couldn't know the specifics of God like we do who have the Word. That's why they all look so different from the truth, but have elements of Him sprinkled in. They did the best they could with nature.
I did see that. The problem they have is that Dawkins is more intellectually consistent in his pre-commitments to Materialism/Naturalism than most are. The fact that he's unwilling to bend his stance to the cause du jour is actually kind of refreshing to see. Most of the folks on that bandwagon are content to go along with whatever is trendy. Of course you're right that it's all intended to remove God (and therefore sin) from the conversation entirely.
Post a Comment