Romans 1:20, Hebrews 11:3

[A Beautiful Truth]

Please tell me how you think this scripture is true:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse. Romans 1:20

On one hand, we have the YEC who has to admit that only YEC's can "clearly" see the evidence for God in creation for only their understanding is not corrupted, and on the other hand, we have TE's who believe God is hidden in creation.

Let me recap a past discussion I had with Glenn from post #39 in the thread "Unicornitarianism" in Nat. Sci.

If you say there is design in nature but say there is no "proof" (and I know nobody can "prove" God--or atheism for that matter--so can we say "reasonable answer" in this context?) for it, how is that different from "unicornitarianism"?
It isn't much different. god wants faith and we should not forget that.

Concerning Glenn's response, I think of the following scripture in Hebrews 11
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3

So, how do each of the views represented here understand the above scriptures? How can we have Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:20 understood in a non contradictory way?

[George Murphy]

Please tell me how you think this scripture is true:



For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse. Romans 1:20

On one hand, we have the YEC who has to admit that only YEC's can "clearly" see the evidence for God in creation for only their understanding is not corrupted, and on the other hand, we have TE's who believe God is hidden in creation.

Let me recap a past discussion I had with Glenn from post #39 in the thread "Unicornitarianism" in Nat. Sci.








Concerning Glenn's response, I think of the following scripture in Hebrews 11By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3

So, how do each of the views represented here understand the above scriptures? How can we have Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:20 understood in a non contradictory way?Charleen -
Just a quick response now. Rom.1 says that there is evidence for God in creation, but the problem Paul emphasizes is that everybody distorts that evidence and constructs idols instead of acknowledging and worshipping the true God. The problem of sin is universal. So Paul isn't here encouraging any kind of "natural theology." When he finishes his indictment of humanity for its sinfulness in Ch.3 he doesn't go back to nature to find out about God but turns to what God has done in Christ - which is where God is truly revealed. It is through faith in Christ that we know the creator.

& even with this knowledge we do not "see" God at work in the world. It is by faith that we can say that God is active in the natural world, & in that sense he is hidden from (e.g., scientific) observation.

Shalom,
George

[grmorton]

Please tell me how you think this scripture is true:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse. Romans 1:20

On one hand, we have the YEC who has to admit that only YEC's can "clearly" see the evidence for God in creation for only their understanding is not corrupted, and on the other hand, we have TE's who believe God is hidden in creation.

Let me recap a past discussion I had with Glenn from post #39 in the thread "Unicornitarianism" in Nat. Sci.




Concerning Glenn's response, I think of the following scripture in Hebrews 11
By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Hebrews 11:3

So, how do each of the views represented here understand the above scriptures? How can we have Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 1:20 understood in a non contradictory way?


I jsut want to be sure my position is clear. Evidence is not proof. There is no proof of design. It is beyond our ability. An example from my rebellious youth. There might be evidence that I engaged in vandalism and breaking and entry when I was a kid, but there is no proof. That is the difference.

[George Murphy]

I jsut want to be sure my position is clear. Evidence is not proof. There is no proof of design. It is beyond our ability. An example from my rebellious youth. There might be evidence that I engaged in vandalism and breaking and entry when I was a kid, but there is no proof. That is the difference.& since the D word has been used here it may be worth commenting on the claim of some IDers that Rom.1 shows that there is evidence (if not proof) of design in nature. Whatever else Paul is talking about, he's referring to aspects of the world that could be observaed & understood by the average person in the 1st century. Things like the bacterial flagellum or deductions from information theory hardly qualify! (I'm indebted to Denis Lamoureux for this point which seems obvious in retrospect but hasn't been given much emphasis.)

Shalom,
George

[brett]

Please tell me how you think this scripture is true:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse. Romans 1:20

On one hand, we have the YEC who has to admit that only YEC's can "clearly" see the evidence for God in creation for only their understanding is not corrupted,

Yes but Romans 1 has nothing to do with doctrinal disputes within the church, especially regarding the interpretation of scripture. Peter makes it clear that some scripture is difficult at times even for the believer (2Pet. 3:16). Paul does the same in Romans 14.

What YECs (some of them) might be saying is that once a man has been enlightened, and then rejects the knowledge of God (or His existence for that matter), he becomes foolish (though still believing he is wise). These foolish men suppress the truth and therefore don’t understand what God has revealed any longer.

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. ...21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Another scripture comes to mind: Psalm 53:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Is this not exactly what evolutionists do before they approach the subject of origins? Do they not insist it must have been a natural process, and not a supernatural miracle? And they do this in spite of the fact that God has given them proof of His existence which is discernable through the simple observations of the naked eye. They don’t misunderstand because they have (or at least had) no information, but rather because they chose to suppress that information.

But Paul, here, is not referring to the understanding of complex doctrinal issues. He’s not saying they have no excuse to misinterpret certain scriptures, but rather to not seek Him and His forgiveness for the laws they know they’ve broken.


and on the other hand, we have TE's who believe God is hidden in creation.

An important point. Notice that at the time Paul revealed this, there were no telescopes nor modern observational equipment. Just the naked eye was sufficient to reveal the truth of God’s existence to man.

But there’s an even more obvious truth in this passage, Charleen. What does Paul mean by, For since the creation of the world.....??

If old earth christians are right about the timeline of creation then observing human beings have only been around since the very tail end of creation, NOT the from the beginning of it. If the universe is really 15 billion years old, than humans have existed only in the final fraction of the percent of the tail end of its existence. Yet if YECs are correct, day 6 occurred just .ooo4 % (according to Sarfati) from the beginning of creation. Therefore only YECs can agree with Paul that men have been observing from the “beginning of creation.” Therefore Paul also must have read Genesis as YECs do.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Brett,

The whole "Since the creation...." issue has been delt with before so I won't go into it.

Glenn,

I know that evidence is not proof. Nobody can "prove" God exists, just as nobody can prove he does not exist.

But what do you think Paul refers to in 1:20? Do you agree with Paul that there is evidence in the creation for God? I am not talking bacteria and all that, I know that is not to what Paul refers. What do you think he refers to, and do you agree with him?

~Charleen

[A Beautiful Truth]

& since the D word has been used here it may be worth commenting on the claim of some IDers that Rom.1 shows that there is evidence (if not proof) of design in nature. Whatever else Paul is talking about, he's referring to aspects of the world that could be observaed & understood by the average person in the 1st century. Things like the bacterial flagellum or deductions from information theory hardly qualify! (I'm indebted to Denis Lamoureux for this point which seems obvious in retrospect but hasn't been given much emphasis.)

Shalom,
George


Charleen -
Just a quick response now. Rom.1 says that there is evidence for God in creation, but the problem Paul emphasizes is that everybody distorts that evidence and constructs idols instead of acknowledging and worshipping the true God. The problem of sin is universal. So Paul isn't here encouraging any kind of "natural theology." When he finishes his indictment of humanity for its sinfulness in Ch.3 he doesn't go back to nature to find out about God but turns to what God has done in Christ - which is where God is truly revealed. It is through faith in Christ that we know the creator.

& even with this knowledge we do not "see" God at work in the world. It is by faith that we can say that God is active in the natural world, & in that sense he is hidden from (e.g., scientific) observation.

George, so I'll ask you the same question I asked Glenn. What do you think Paul refers to in 1:20? Do you agree with Paul that there is evidence in the creation for God? I am not talking bacteria and all that, I know that is not to what Paul refers. What do you think he refers to, and do you agree with him?

Paul is not referring to Christ here, he is referring to what has been made that makes man accountable to God. What do you think this means?

[George Murphy]

George, so I'll ask you the same question I asked Glenn. What do you think Paul refers to in 1:20? Do you agree with Paul that there is evidence in the creation for God? I am not talking bacteria and all that, I know that is not to what Paul refers. What do you think he refers to, and do you agree with him?

Paul is not referring to Christ here, he is referring to what has been made that makes man accountable to God. What do you think this means?This is a good question & I'll say right off that I'm not sure of the answer. Paul just says that God's power is obvious "from the things that are made." What are they? & how do we infer anything about God from them.

It's important to realize that the issue here isn't "Is there a God" (or gods & godesses)? Genuine atheism wasn't an issue for Paul. The question is rather who God is and the problem is that people distort the evidence for God and produce idols.

My guess - & it's only that - is that what Paul has in mind is straightforward versions of common arguments for God. E.g., everything can be traced to some maker so the universe must have been made by someone. (Cf. Heb.3:4, though that's not Pauline.) But because of human sinfulness people consistently fail to identify the maker of the universe properly.

Does that mean that if we weren't sinners things like the cosmological argument would lead us to the true God? Well, if we weren't sinners we would be in the right relationship with God & therefore would know the true God.

I realize that this answer isn't too satisfactory but since Paul doesn't go into detail I don't know if we can do more than guess what type of evidence he was referring to.

Shalom,
George

[Starkman]

I jsut want to be sure my position is clear. . . There might be evidence that I engaged in vandalism and breaking and entry when I was a kid, but there is no proof.

Mwwwwaaaaa! I have the proof, my little gmorton! I was there! I saw all! I was the other kid vandalizing and breaking and entering the buildings next to the ones you were doing! Ha-ha! I have tapes, sound recordings (even ones with dophins making their squeaky sounds) and...worse, I have radio-carbon thermonuclearinfluence (...that other dating system...) of the levels of age-changes in the buildings (and cars and homes) of which you vandelized. It's all there. (No YV--Young Vandelism dates here! It was you way back when!) :grin:

Humor aside, you know when I read your post, I thought, oh my heavens, there were others out there like me? Ugh!

Starkman

[grmorton]

Mwwwwaaaaa! I have the proof, my little gmorton! I was there! I saw all! I was the other kid vandalizing and breaking and entering the buildings next to the ones you were doing! Ha-ha! I have tapes, sound recordings (even ones with dophins making their squeaky sounds) and...worse, I have radio-carbon thermonuclearinfluence (...that other dating system...) of the levels of age-changes in the buildings (and cars and homes) of which you vandelized. It's all there. (No YV--Young Vandelism dates here! It was you way back when!) :grin:

Humor aside, you know when I read your post, I thought, oh my heavens, there were others out there like me? Ugh!

Starkman

How much do you want for the tapes? :blush:

Yeah, unfortunately when my kids were growing up my wife insisted on a rule that we would never discuss my childhood in front of the kids. Now that they are all grown, I don't have much fear of the impact on the kid's lives.

[A Beautiful Truth]

It's important to realize that the issue here isn't "Is there a God" (or gods & godesses)? Genuine atheism wasn't an issue for Paul. The question is rather who God is and the problem is that people distort the evidence for God and produce idols.

Good point, I'll have to think about it.

Glenn, I'd really like to hear what you say, too.

~Charleen

[Robyn Banks]

Please tell me how you think this scripture is true:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse. Romans 1:20

Paul, like many of us, tended to equate mere cultural understandings with 'nature'. Strongly-held beliefs often seem 'natural' to us, until we strike a person or people who don't hold them. Belief in God or gods is certainly the norm in cultures and individuals. But Paul overstates his case when he claims that someone is 'without excuse' for not making a necessary connection between the world and God. In all fairness to Paul, until the Enlightenment in the West, there were few people who would have denied the connection as self-evident. But since then, it is obviously not 'self-evident'.

So Paul's statement should be viewed as exaggeration - false universalisation of a particular cultural understanding. Much like this one: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?"

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[A Beautiful Truth]

In all fairness to Paul, until the Enlightenment in the West, there were few people who would have denied the connection as self-evident. But since then, it is obviously not 'self-evident'.

But there were "enlightened" ones long before the enlightenment. The fool says to himself...

So Paul's statement should be viewed as exaggeration - false universalisation of a particular cultural understanding. Much like this one: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?"


I think the "nature" to which Paul refers is that of a natural man unnaturally looking like a woman.

I don't think, therefore, Paul's meaning is false universalisation of a particular cultural understanding in this instance. While I understand Paul did speak to the cultures at the time regarding different practices and customs, I am not entirely convinced the context of the example qualifies your assesment.

[Robyn Banks]

In all fairness to Paul, until the Enlightenment in the West, there were few people who would have denied the connection as self-evident. But since then, it is obviously not 'self-evident'.

But there were "enlightened" ones long before the enlightenment. The fool says to himself...
Non sequitur.



So Paul's statement should be viewed as exaggeration - false universalisation of a particular cultural understanding. Much like this one: "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him?"

I think the "nature" to which Paul refers is that of a natural man unnaturally looking like a woman.
This is obviously false. Paul is referring to 'Nature Herself": h fusiV auth (he physis aute).

Your interpretation is simply untenable.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[A Beautiful Truth]

Non sequitur.

Even though some people may not think of it self evident since the Enlightenment, (though surveys would probably give evidence against this assumption) I don't believe the rejection of the connection between nature and God is because of "enlightened" revelation as much of the hardened mind against the witness nature gives of God.

This is obviously false. Paul is referring to 'Nature Herself": h fusiV auth (he physis aute).

Your interpretation is simply untenable.

Please explain. I thought the "nature" would be in line with our natural reactions. Our natural reactions to seeing a man as a woman is thinking of it as dishonorable. (This would of course mean that if we react otherwise it is learned, not "natural")

[Robyn Banks]

Please tell me how you think this scripture is true:
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without exuse. Romans 1:20

Paul, like many of us, tended to equate mere cultural understandings with 'nature'. Strongly-held beliefs often seem 'natural' to us, until we strike a person or people who don't hold them. Belief in God or gods is certainly the norm in cultures and individuals. But Paul overstates his case when he claims that someone is 'without excuse' for not making a necessary connection between the world and God. In all fairness to Paul, until the Enlightenment in the West, there were few people who would have denied the connection as self-evident. But since then, it is obviously not 'self-evident'.

But there were "enlightened" ones long before the enlightenment. The fool says to himself...

Non sequitur.

Even though some people may not think of it self evident since the Enlightenment, (though surveys would probably give evidence against this assumption) I don't believe the rejection of the connection between nature and God is because of "enlightened" revelation as much of the hardened mind against the witness nature gives of God.
Non sequitur. (1. My point about God's existence not being self-evident only since the Enlightenment was not a defence of that position. It was merely to defend Paul's confusion of an almost universal cultural norm, with 'nature'. 2. I was not arguing that the belief after was 'enlightened', I was merely naming the period in which the existence of God ceased to be practically universally self-evident).

As for your point, God may well have been the best explanation for the existence of the universe before Darwin and modern cosmology, but afterwards this is far from 'self-evident' - even if it is more a more reasonable than not. To claim that this is mere 'prejudice' is really quite a bankrupt position, and a closing of one's eyes to alternative coherent frameworks for understanding existence apart from one's own. There is a significant competing theory to 'God made us', and whether you personally accept it or not, it is simply ignorant to think that it is something that is only followed because of a 'hardened mind'. To the contrary, a non-divine explanation for the universe is, whatever your final decision about it, coherent and acceptable. It is a thoroughly understandable conclusion for someone to come to, given our current understanding of the world.






I think the "nature" to which Paul refers is that of a natural man unnaturally looking like a woman.

This is obviously false. Paul is referring to 'Nature Herself": η φυσις αυτη (he physis aute).
Your interpretation is simply untenable.

Please explain. I thought the "nature" would be in line with our natural reactions. Our natural reactions to seeing a man as a woman is thinking of it as dishonorable. (This would of course mean that if we react otherwise it is learned, not "natural")
But Paul does not condemn this. To the contrary, if you look a couple of verses down in the letter, he says that for those who want to have long hair, neither he nor the churches have any custom against it. It is clearly not sinful actions of the 'natural man' that Paul is referring to (which he would condemn). Rather, he is appealing to a norm which he believes is supported by Nature Herself.

Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[A Beautiful Truth]

As for your point, God may well have been the best explanation for the existence of the universe before Darwin and modern cosmology, but afterwards this is far from 'self-evident' - even if it is more a more reasonable than not.

So, to you, this is to what Paul refers? I am trying to assertain what Paul is saying. So you think he is wrong because you believe he is solely speaking of an anti evolutionary creation but now we moderns know that evolution can adequeately fill the roll? Could he not be speaking of something else in nature?

I am interested in hearing how the theistic evolutionists would handle this, if they would go that far as to declaring Paul wrong because of modern science. Is there nothing more in nature than "creation" that can point us to God? Paul says "since the creation" and is therefore not confined to the subject of evolution/anti evolution. For all I know God could have used evolution to make the world. I think there is something more in what has been made that makes God's attributes "clearly seen", and this is what I'd like to explore with the theistic evolutionists.

To claim that this is mere 'prejudice' is really quite a bankrupt position, and a closing of one's eyes to alternative coherent frameworks for understanding existence apart from one's own. There is a significant competing theory to 'God made us', and whether you personally accept it or not, it is simply ignorant to think that it is something that is only followed because of a 'hardened mind'. To the contrary, a non-divine explanation for the universe is, whatever your final decision about it, coherent and acceptable. It is a thoroughly understandable conclusion for someone to come to, given our current understanding of the world.

But I believe there is something more than the evolution/anti-evolution debate going on in Paul. As George had pointed out earlier, Paul's audience probably all held a belief in God. This was not Paul's goal, to preach the existance of God through what was made but rather he narrowed his point down to God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature" in contrast with the pagan religions. What does the original languages allow? I think exegesis would allow this for consider that these ones Paul condemnes are those who "worshipped and served". Those who do not believe in deities would not literally worship and serve. I therefore do not believe Paul touches on anything anti-evolutionary in the context of creation in this passage but only what he says: God's "invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature."

But Paul does not condemn this. To the contrary, if you look a couple of verses down in the letter, he says that for those who want to have long hair, neither he nor the churches have any custom against it. It is clearly not sinful actions of the 'natural man' that Paul is referring to (which he would condemn). Rather, he is appealing to a norm which he believes is supported by Nature Herself.


Please explain. I thought the "nature" would be in line with our natural reactions. Our natural reactions to seeing a man as a woman is thinking of it as dishonorable. (This would of course mean that if we react otherwise it is learned, not "natural")

But Paul does not condemn this.

Paul does not condemn a man looking as a woman?

To the contrary, if you look a couple of verses down in the letter, he says that for those who want to have long hair, neither he nor the churches have any custom against it. It is clearly not sinful actions of the 'natural man' that Paul is referring to (which he would condemn). Rather, he is appealing to a norm which he believes is supported by Nature Herself.

When you brought it up originally, you thought that Paul was wrong in saying it was self evident in nature that it is dishonorable for a man to have long hair. I tried to qualify what Paul had meant by that, namely that it is self evidently dishonorable for a man to look like a woman. With what do you disagree? My assessment that Paul was speaking in this regard?