From: Josh Bembenek (jbembe@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 14:54:47 EDT
George-
You know what you wrote, I know what you wrote. I obviously put those
quotes together for a reason, to focus the point. You did not answer my
first question, instead you sidestepped the question I posed to you:
The question remains, what aspects of nature do you believe Romans refers to
as a directive toward God's invisible qualities -his eternal power and
divine nature for all men?
You make two statements that contradict what I see that scripture says
(which I quoted and which are surrounded with * so you won't feel
misrepresented here):
*Paul is NOT arguing here for natural theology. He says that people should
be able to know God in creation but that they distort this knowledge and
worship idols.* This is the beginning of 2 chapters in which he sets out
the universal problem of sin. & when he's finished making that case at 3:20
he doesn't say, "OK, now let's go back and do natural theology correctly."
Instead he immediately turns to what God has done in Christ. *The attempt
to know God from nature, independently of revelation, usually results in the
construction of idols - of which the Intelligent Designer or the God who
"left his fingerprints all over the evidence" may be examples.*
I then asked: "So which is it, do we know of God's invisible qualities from
nature or not?" I ask this because the question stands independent of
chapter 2,3 or the rest. Nothing in your argument about the law or Paul's
characterization of sin or presentation of Christ nullifies the relationship
between creation and God's qualities made known to man, your answer does not
address my question. Let me make myself more clear: Paul specifically makes
this statement "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because
God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly
seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without
excuse." You appear to be contradicting what Paul says. Paul does not say
Men SHOULD know of God in creation, such that they are without excuse. It
clearly says that all men DO know to such a degree that they are without
excuse. This doesn't mean that they should have known, but didn't get it,
and thus per your interpretation would have the excuse "My fallen nature
prevented me from getting it." How could God hold us accountable when we
"should" have gotten it, but by our fallen nature will never get it? Yes,
for those who reject God, this knowledge, revealed by creation, is
distorted/ rejected. But God's qualities do not thus become unknown to them
just because they reject it and follow idols. All of this in no means
indicates that nature does not reveal anything about God.
I'll ask you again, in parts.
What does nature reveal such that men are without excuse?
What part of nature reveals whatever makes men without excuse?
Perhaps a rephrased question would help get the answer I'm looking for: How
far can we extrapolate from creation to 'God's invisible qualities--his
eternal power and divine nature--'?
What line has ID or fingerprinters crossed that is unjustifiable and thus
may be idolatry?
Secondly, you have not defended the point that ID or "God's Fingerprint"
concepts may be idolatry. You simply make a claim without defense that is
not compelling.
I am not purposely distorting your comments nor trying to take them out of
context, I am juxtaposing what you have said for the purpose of asking the
simple question of "What Does Nature Say?" There are several distinctions
here, for example what does it say to a non-believer vs. a beleiver? What
does it say in light of revelation that it does not say without it? What
exactly does it say such that ALL men are without excuse, etc. It is not a
requirement for nature to say anything about God only in light of
revelation- it says something to all men, such that they are without excuse
for turning away from God.
You should take the opportunity to clarify your point, why you find natural
theology false, defend why ID is idolatry, etc. Instead, your first
approach was simply to use debate tactics and chant Theologia naturalis
delenda est! and tell me to reread your posts when you avoid answering the
question. This phenomena certainly would appear to be preaching to the
choir because you won't go far to convincing others of your view with your
approach. Not many Christians will take kindly to being implicated as
idolaters, it is a very serious accusation that you are simply suggesting
without much clarification.
"God's presence & activity in nature is to be perceived by viewing
scientific discoveries in the light of revelation, not by trying to deduce
it them from scientific data independently of revelation."
Then how are all men without excuse? There is no deduction needed, indeed,
God has made the case plain.
Josh
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 14:55:16 EDT