On Natural Theology
People often point to the possibility of natural knowledge of God to justify God’s judgment on those who have never heard the gospel. The text for this position is Romans 1:18-23 (and following):
Now, let me put this alongside another famous passage from the same epistle, Romans 10:14-17:
Here are my questions:
I’d like some help on these issues from our illustrious Socratics.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. (RSV)
Now, let me put this alongside another famous passage from the same epistle, Romans 10:14-17:
But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” But they have not all heeded the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ. (RSV)
Here are my questions:
- Can a person learn enough about God from the sort of knowing described in Romans 1 to avoid condemnation? If yes, then does not Paul’s string of rhetorical questions in Romans 10 fail (i.e., sent preachers are not necessary for men to call upon the Lord)? If no, then in what sense can the Romans 1 sort of knowing help us understand why God condemns those who are “without a preacher”?
- Some might try to solve this problem by appealing to our broken epistemic apparatus that prevents us from seeing what “has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” Fine. But then the question is, When did that apparatus break, and what difference does that make for God’s condemnation?
I’d like some help on these issues from our illustrious Socratics.
posted by Tom McGlothlin at 9:07 AM
5 Comments:
I think one of the key points is whether it is ignorance that condemns or denial. I think the latter comes out clearly in the Romans 1 passage and then, in some slightly gymnastic way, completely skirts the problems of your Romans 10 passage.
On a scriptural note, there is the (watch out for the overused academic word coming up) dialogical nature of Romans which demands that Paul does mean something different in Romans 10 than he meant in Romans 1. He is not repeating the same line over and over again but developing and adapting and doing all manner of literary and argumentative actions. That is also a way to skirt around the question, but it is one which I think also holds some water, even if it is only from a dixie cup.
Tom,
This is a great question and a great pairing of passages from Romans. I will think on this more and reflect later (probalby next week after mid-terms, Marcus/Habermas, race forum, Song of Deborah commentary, and a Greek quiz are out of the way!)
Wilson,
I do realize that the Romans 1 passage says that it is denial that condemns, not ignorance; but I'm not sure how this solves the problem, since denial implies knowledge. And if knowledge is available without proclamation, then proclamation is not, strictly speaking, necessary.
The only way I see out of this dilemma is to say that the knowledge spoken of in Rom. 1 really is available, but it's not the same as the knowledge that needs to be proclaimed. But in that case, God would seem to be condemning people for denying information that's insufficient for salvation. (I know there are lots of problems with the language of "knowledge" being necessary or sufficient for "salvation." Let's avoid getting sidetracked by that. Clearly, Paul thinks it's necessary that something get proclaimed.)
The more I think about this (Rom. 1), the less sure I am of its function in Paul's argument. I am aware of the "dialogical" nature of Romans; I'd just like to see a dialogical reading of these passages that keeps them from canceling each other out.
(To be clear: Denial of the proclaimed message is certainly possible, and no doubt also deserving of condemnation. I'm just saying that Romans 1 seems to undercut Romans 10's claim that the proclamation necessary.)
Paul,Philo, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, and yes even Barth (this is the bait, go ahead, take it) all agreed that God is revealed in nature, and the Rom 1:18-32 passage is the linchpin. Thus there is no excuse for those who do not know God.
The most common explanation (Philo,Augustine, Calvin, Melanchthon, and misc. Reformers) is that the Law (torah) is proclaimed by nature such that the attributes of God are revealed. But the Gospel is not.
Calvin has the best explanation of this, but all of the Reformers disagreed with him. We are nearly blinded to that which is revealed by sin, such that we have an astigmatism that can only be healed by the spectacles of Scripture. More importantly, we are culpable because we willfully disobey; that is, our will is distorted in our sin such that we choose not to see the Law revealed in nature. Culpability is where his colleagues disagreed with him.
As that Romish guy said, it is denial that condemns.
Source: Calvin in Context, Steinmetz; also Confessions
(there's that bait. barth. barth. barth. you know you want to take it...go ahead)
The discussion of the jews and the relation between the jews and gentiles is interesting here because if one is preached to in order to call, how do the jews (who call upon the name of the Lord) find out to call?
The heart of Romans 10 is the Jew/Gentile contraversy and somehow I thinks this makes the situation significantly different from Paul's address in Romans 1 which does not have a contingent audience id est there is no distinction between who has heard and who hasn't, who has been circumsised and who hasn't, there is only the universality of ungodliness.
I just want to press that a little as a possible reading. Another way is to say that Romans 1 is referring to a knowledge of sin, a knowledge of disobedience and yet contains an ignorance of Christ crucifed. Play with those a little bit.
Post a Comment
<< Home