[...] About Those Who Have Never Heard? Greg Koukl profoundly interacts with the question, “What about those who have never heard the Gospel?” I think his [...]
He gives essentially the right answer, but seems to read into Romans 1 the idea that we know God by observing creation. It is the “invisible things of him FROM [not by or via] the creation of the world are clearly seen” that render men without excuse. Invisible and eternal truths cannot be inferred by observation. But, of course, that’s not what Paul is suggesting either by the word “creation” or by the idea of seeing. Seeing in Scripture is more often than not intellection, not sensation. A good example of this is Jesus who said; “because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
Paul is discussing the apriori in man, a point he reiterates again in Chapter 2 concerning the law written on men’s minds. Koukl gets this right, but, again seems to infer too much from Romans 1 in the first part. Paul was not an evidentialist and while sloppy handling of the first chapter of Romans is routine, there is no reason why one is required to subscribe to Aquinas’ attempt to justify Aristotle by this misreading of Scripture.
[...] About Those Who Have Never Heard? Greg Koukl profoundly interacts with the question, “What about those who have never heard the Gospel?” I think his [...]
Pingback by What About Those Who Have Never Heard? « A Brick in the Valley — January 23, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Thanks. This is helpful for some upcoming preaching.
Comment by cdbrauns — January 23, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Two-cents:
He gives essentially the right answer, but seems to read into Romans 1 the idea that we know God by observing creation. It is the “invisible things of him FROM [not by or via] the creation of the world are clearly seen” that render men without excuse. Invisible and eternal truths cannot be inferred by observation. But, of course, that’s not what Paul is suggesting either by the word “creation” or by the idea of seeing. Seeing in Scripture is more often than not intellection, not sensation. A good example of this is Jesus who said; “because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
Paul is discussing the apriori in man, a point he reiterates again in Chapter 2 concerning the law written on men’s minds. Koukl gets this right, but, again seems to infer too much from Romans 1 in the first part. Paul was not an evidentialist and while sloppy handling of the first chapter of Romans is routine, there is no reason why one is required to subscribe to Aquinas’ attempt to justify Aristotle by this misreading of Scripture.
Comment by magma2 — January 27, 2008 @ 8:46 am