Romans 1:18-21 says that all people believe in God:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 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. 21 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 foolish hearts were darkened.
1) It seems that there are people who are unbelievers. 2) Paul says that all people believe in God in Romans 1. Does not 1 in conjunction with 2 seem like a contradiction? In this post I will argue that there is no contradiction here.
I think the contradiction disappears when one understands the distinction between believing *in* and believing *that*. Believing *in* would be trusting in someone, this would be a non-propositional personal relationship. On the other hand, believing *that* would be believing that a certain proposition or state of affairs is true. So for example, when I say I believe that my girlfriend is watching I love Lucy at 12:35 am on Sunday, this is a example of believing that a proposition is true. But when I say I believe in my girlfriend to be faithful to me, this is a non-propositional trusting relationship I have. Thus, the distinction is between believing that and trusting in.
Clearly Romans 1 is teaching that all people believe *that* God exists but certainly it is not teaching us that unbelievers believe *in* God and have a relationship because this is something that is only true of a believer who has faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Thus, it is clear that there is no contradiction here.
But there is another sort of problem that has been answered By Greg L. Bahnsen in his famous dissertation on the paradox of self deception. The problem is that atheists claim that they do not believe *that* God exists. In other words they reject that they believe the proposition that God exists. If they are right then this means the bible is unreasonable in what it says about unbelievers. But there is no reason for thinking this, as Bahnsen has argued they might be very well self-deceived. Here is what that possibly might look like. The unbeliever possibly believes:
P1: S believes that p is true
P2: S believes that he is not the kind of person to say that he believes that p is true.
Let us say that S would stand for subject or person; P would be the proposition that God exists. Thus, this shows us that there is no contradiction between what Romans 1 has to teach and what an atheist has to say. Because a atheist is self-deceived and from what I have shown from P1 and P2 in conjunction it seems that self-deception is certainly possible. But why would a unbeliever do this? Well perhaps it is because they hate God and the worst thing they could do to God in their mind is say that he does not exist. It is sort of like if I were to pretend that my father did not exist anymore, certainly this would be a hateful action I would perform in order to cause disrepute to my father. Likewise unbelievers do the very same thing, they hate God so they say that he does not exist. It is reasonable to think this, that unbelievers hate God because John says that they love the darkness:
John 3:19 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.
In light of this, it seems that Paul's teaching in Romans 1 is reasonable.
I don't think this holds up. It seems to me that Psalms 14.1 contradicts this issue of self deception. The fool has said in his heart that there is no god.
ReplyDeleteNow, if it said that the fool has said in his head that there is no god, the self deception idea would stand better ground. It doesn't though, and if you look up other uses/references to the heart and knowledge in the bible the case becomes even worse.
Also it seems as though Bahnsen's explanation is actually an excuse, which is contradictory.
Hello there,
ReplyDeleteI don't think this holds up. It seems to me that Psalms 14.1 contradicts this issue of self deception. The fool has said in his heart that there is no god.
Response: I do not think this in contradiction with anything I said. Someone can say something to themselves and that something could be false. So it is hard to see how this is a problem.
Now, if it said that the fool has said in his head that there is no god, the self deception idea would stand better ground. It doesn't though, and if you look up other uses/references to the heart and knowledge in the bible the case becomes even worse.
Response: Actually, the heart in Hebrew thought represented the whole person, so I do not see an issue here. This is common knowledge you can look that up in a commentary.
Also it seems as though Bahnsen's explanation is actually an excuse, which is contradictory.
Response: How would it be a contradiction? The unbeliever has no reason to say that he does not believe in God and he has all the reason to believe in God through general revelation. He has such good grounds for thinking that God exists he lies to himself about it….that hardly seems like an excuse. This becomes pretty evident when you imagine someone being judged for lying to themselves all their lives “You cannot punish me, I knew I was wrong, but I lied to myself”. It seems to me that lying to yourself is not something that prevents someone for being held morally responsible in a negative sense, but rather it seems to necessitate moral responsibility. But I am not really sure what you are arguing because your statements were very brief and unclear.
God Bless,
NPT
I don't think your reasoning follows. You write:
ReplyDelete"Someone can say something to themselves and that something could be false"
and then you write this:
"Actually, the heart in Hebrew thought represented the whole person, so I do not see an issue here."
In the first instance there would have to be a piece of the person that would know that what they are saying to themselves is false. The second statement suggests that there is no such piece to be found.
As to Bahsen's statement, it is not supported and it is an excuse in the sense that he is just trying to justify begging the question. I think it's quite clear that the bible states that atheists do not believe, in fact they 'do no good' and are 'fools'.
If someone says with all their hearts that they do not believe god exists, as Psalms 14.1 suggests, then Bahnsen is wrong (at least biblically). He's wrong on two fronts, biblically and empirically (as he has no evidence).
Hello again,
ReplyDeleteI don't think your reasoning follows. You write:
"Someone can say something to themselves and that something could be false"
and then you write this:
"Actually, the heart in Hebrew thought represented the whole person, so I do not see an issue here."
In the first instance there would have to be a piece of the person that would know that what they are saying to themselves is false. The second statement suggests that there is no such piece to be found.
Response: It would not be a piece of a person. I am not sure if we can even speak of parts of a person to begin with. Rather it would be the entire person believing that God exists and then lying about because he does not believe that he is the sort of person that can have a trusting relationship with God and this causes him to say that he does not believe in God to others because he hates God. The crucial issue you are missing here is that of self-deception. The unbeliever is lying to himself because he hates his heavenly father. This is certainly possible since unbelievers after debating with me on the issue of God's existence have admitted to me that they know God exists but they do not want to admit that because they hate God. So I do not think there is any contradiction here that you have shown so it seems that my reasoning does follow.
As to Bahsen's statement, it is not supported and it is an excuse in the sense that he is just trying to justify begging the question. I think it's quite clear that the bible states that atheists do not believe, in fact they 'do no good' and are 'fools'.
Response: Again, doing no good and being a fool is compatible with lying themselves and to others about trusting in God. The bible never teaches that non-Christians do not believe that God does not exist. So, again you are just assuming your point to be sound without any biblical evidence and good philosophical reasons.
If someone says with all their hearts that they do not believe god exists, as Psalms 14.1 suggests, then Bahnsen is wrong (at least biblically). He's wrong on two fronts, biblically and empirically (as he has no evidence).
Response: Why could not the fool say this and be lying to himself because he hates God? You have given no syllogism and no evidence to suggest that the concept of self-deception is contradictory or false. Therefore, I conclude with saying that it is reasonable to believe that the unbeliever does suppress the truth in unrighteousness and thus he deceives himself in the process.
God Bless,
NPT
It would not be a piece of a person. I am not sure if we can even speak of parts of a person
ReplyDeleteto begin with.
-- That's okay, I wasn't actually trying to suggest that. It would seem to be what your position is reduced to.
Rather it would be the entire person believing that God exists and then lying about because he does not believe that he is the sort of person that can have a trusting relationship with God and this causes him to say that he does not believe in God to others because he hates God. The crucial issue you are missing here is that of self-deception.
--Okay, so then Psalms 14.1 is wrong. The unbeliever really doesn't say in his heart that god doesn't exist.
The unbeliever is lying to himself because he hates his heavenly father. This is certainly possible since unbelievers after debating with me on the issue of God's existence have admitted to me that they know God exists but they do not want to admit that because they hate God.
--Are you sure about this? This sounds like the urban legend that Christians tell themselves that unbelievers are unbelievers because they want to live immorally.
So I do not think there is any contradiction here that you have shown so it seems that my reasoning does follow.
--That's okay, you don't have to believe what the bible says.
Again, doing no good and being a fool is compatible with lying themselves and to others about trusting in God.
--Well yes, but not when you add it all up with the Psalms statement. I don't see how you think you have a leg to stand on here, especially after you admitted "Actually, the heart in Hebrew thought represented the whole person, so I do not see an issue here. This is common knowledge you can look that up in a commentary. "
This does not indicate lying to oneself, it indicates an ingrained belief, not a self deception.
The bible never teaches that non-Christians do not believe that God does not exist.
--You mean, except for Psalms 14.1, right?
So, again you are just assuming your point to be sound without any biblical evidence and good philosophical reasons.
--I see, you ignore the pertinent passage and then you say that I'm just assuming my point. Does this help you sleep at night?
Why could not the fool say this and be lying to himself because he hates God?
--Because that makes no sense what-so-ever and is a non sequitur. Keep in mind that Psalms isn't a passage *BY* an unbeliever, it's a passage *ABOUT* an unbeliever.
You have given no syllogism and no evidence to suggest that the concept of self-deception is contradictory or false.
--I don't need to, as that's not my argument. My argument is that the bible doesn't suggest this - you are simply picking and choosing what scripture you wish to believe. You ignore the difficult bits (ie, Psalms 14.1) that contradict your ideas.
Therefore, I conclude with saying that it is reasonable to believe that the unbeliever does suppress the truth in unrighteousness and thus he deceives himself in the process.
--Of course you would conclude this, it's unreasonable and studies recently showed that believers can point the faults in reason in others but they can't recognize the faults in their own thinking.
In any event, good luck to you.
Just to pour salt in the wound a little, I thought I'd expound. You see, if we examine the passage 'in his heart' throughout the bible, it doesn't line up with anything harmonious with your twisting of scripture to support your contention that the atheists are self deceptive.
ReplyDeleteSure, they could be wrong, but atheist according to the bible at least, genuinely believe god doesn't exist.
Let's remember: Psalms 14.1 The fool has said in his heart there is no god.
1 Samuel 27:1 And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul will despair of me, to seek me any more in all the borders of Israel: so shall I escape out of his hand.
So is David engaging in self deception here? There's plenty more in the bible that supports my reading. Oddly there are none that support yours. Why do you think that is?
If the author was trying to show self deception here, why not just write something similar to this:
Psalm 12:2 They speak falsehood every one with his neighbor: With flattering lip, and with a double heart, do they speak.
It seems that the bible doesn't support Bahnsen or your contention.
In other words, it seems that, according to the bible, atheists do not believe in god.
Let me guess though, I'm wrong because you think otherwise and some verses can be twisted to suggest what you think. Those verses that contradict what you think, they had to mean something else - anything else. Am I right?
Hello,
ReplyDelete-- That's okay, I wasn't actually trying to suggest that. It would seem to be what your position is reduced to.
Response: I do not see how it would.
--Okay, so then Psalms 14.1 is wrong. The unbeliever really doesn't say in his heart that god doesn't exist.
Response: No, it is correct. He says that God does not exist at times when he suppressing the truth. I have said things to myself internal at times that I know are false.
--Are you sure about this? This sounds like the urban legend that Christians tell themselves that unbelievers are unbelievers because they want to live immorally.
Response: I am sure. It has happened more than once and I would say it happens 10 percent of the time in private.
--That's okay, you don't have to believe what the bible says.
Response: No, I believe what the Bible says, especially what Romans 1 says.
--Well yes, but not when you add it all up with the Psalms statement. I don't see how you think you have a leg to stand on here, especially after you admitted "Actually, the heart in Hebrew thought represented the whole person, so I do not see an issue here. This is common knowledge you can look that up in a commentary. "
Response: How do I not have a leg to stand on here? Saying so does not make it so: you have to provide arguments, evidences or syllogisms as to why I am mistaken...and you have failed to this thus far.
--You mean, except for Psalms 14.1, right?
Response: Saying something in your heart is different from believing it.
--I see, you ignore the pertinent passage and then you say that I'm just assuming my point. Does this help you sleep at night?
Response: It does not matter if it does or not help me sleep at night. Completely irrelevant to the argument. Stay with reasons and arguments no emotional jabs at the person.
--Because that makes no sense what-so-ever and is a non sequitur. Keep in mind that Psalms isn't a passage *BY* an unbeliever, it's a passage *ABOUT* an unbeliever.
Response: How is it a non sequitur? And how does it make no sense? And how does it follow that my interpretation makes no sense given that it is about a unbeliever?
-I don't need to, as that's not my argument. My argument is that the bible doesn't suggest this - you are simply picking and choosing what scripture you wish to believe. You ignore the difficult bits (ie, Psalms 14.1) that contradict your ideas.
Response: You are begging the question.
--Of course you would conclude this, it's unreasonable and studies recently showed that believers can point the faults in reason in others but they can't recognize the faults in their own thinking.
Response: That is a interesting psychological fact. But I am more interested in your reasons rather than your personal attacks.
Just to pour salt in the wound a little, I thought I'd expound. You see, if we examine the passage 'in his heart' throughout the bible, it doesn't line up with anything harmonious with your twisting of scripture to support your contention that the atheists are self deceptive.
Response: Okay, that's fine but you have not given me any salt in my wounds to begin with. But that is if you take salt to mean arguments, but if you take salt to mean irrational personal attacks then yeah you would be pouring a lot of salt.
1 Samuel 27:1 And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul: there is nothing better for me than that I should escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul will despair of me, to seek me any more in all the borders of Israel: so shall I escape out of his hand.
So is David engaging in self deception here? There's plenty more in the bible that supports my reading. Oddly there are none that support yours. Why do you think that is?
Response: David is not engaging in self-deception. I did not argue that every time heart is used that self-deception is occurring. All I said is that when heart is predicated of a person it is referring to the entire persons thoughts, intentions, emotions, and desires.
If the author was trying to show self deception here, why not just write something similar to this:
Psalm 12:2 They speak falsehood every one with his neighbor: With flattering lip, and with a double heart, do they speak.
It seems that the bible doesn't support Bahnsen or your contention.
In other words, it seems that, according to the bible, atheists do not believe in god.
Let me guess though, I'm wrong because you think otherwise and some verses can be twisted to suggest what you think. Those verses that contradict what you think, they had to mean something else - anything else. Am I right?
Response: The reason why the Psalmist did not write it that way is because he wanted to describe what took place in a unbeliever from a first person perspective for literary and poetic purposes. I have noticed that my arguments have caused your responses to become increasingly hostile. If this continues then I will erase your insults since it inappropriate given the cordial academic nature of this blog.
God Bless,
NPT
No, it is correct. He says that God does not exist at times when he suppressing the truth. I have said things to myself internal at times that I know are false.
ReplyDelete--You are twisting the meaning of scripture here. There is a perfectly good phrase (as I pointed out in a subsequent post) to indicate this meaning.
Response: I am sure. It has happened more than once and I would say it happens 10 percent of the time in private.
--This is entirely anecdotal, and I see no reason to believe it. It's equally likely that the 'atheists' you were debating were simply theists pretending to be atheists.
Response: No, I believe what the Bible says, especially what Romans 1 says.
--So you pick and choose then?
Response: How do I not have a leg to stand on here? Saying so does not make it so: you have to provide arguments, evidences or syllogisms as to why I am mistaken...and you have failed to this thus far.
--I have pointed out that your interpretation of the verse is strained. As I pointed out, the writers of the bible haven't used 'in his heart' in a way AT ALL consistent with how you are imagining it should be used. I have also pointed out that the bible used other terms to indicate self deception (with a double heart).
--You have...let's see.. that's right, COMPLETELY ignored this.
Response: Saying something in your heart is different from believing it.
--You can't support this via the bible and you know it, since the bible uses 'with a double heart' to indicate self deception.
Response: It does not matter if it does or not help me sleep at night. Completely irrelevant to the argument. Stay with reasons and arguments no emotional jabs at the person.
--I'm sorry, but I grow impatient with your dancing around the topic. You are simply assuming what you want to about the verse without any sort of justification for how you are interpreting it. Just admit that you are mistaken. It's not hard really and it'll probably make you feel better.
Response: How is it a non sequitur? And how does it make no sense?
--I've stated this already. In the instances that the bible uses 'in his heart' it indicates belief, NOT self deception. The bible has another phrase for that, 'with a double heart'.
And how does it follow that my interpretation makes no sense given that it is about a unbeliever?
--Because your statement implies that the unbeliever wrote this, remember, you said: "Why could not the fool say this and be lying to himself because he hates God?"
Response: You are begging the question.
--Negative, I've supported my argument by pulling relative verses to support the use of 'in his heart' and 'with a double heart'.
--You have not. In fact, your interpetation of Psalm 14.1 is completely unsupportable. No where that I can find does the bible use 'in his heart' in the way that you are attempting to use it here.
Response: That is a interesting psychological fact. But I am more interested in your reasons rather than your personal attacks.
--I don't think you are, actually, since you seem to be ignoring them and just assuming you are correct.
Response: Okay, that's fine but you have not given me any salt in my wounds to begin with. But that is if you take salt to mean arguments, but if you take salt to mean irrational personal attacks then yeah you would be pouring a lot of salt.
--It's not my fault that you apparently can't recognize when you are incorrect. Don't worry though, apparently a lot of your fellow theistic brethren share the same problem.
Response: David is not engaging in self-deception. I did not argue that every time heart is used that self-deception is occurring. All I said is that when heart is predicated of a person it is referring to the entire persons thoughts, intentions, emotions, and desires.
--Of course you didn't argue that - since it would be obvious that you are incorrect. The fact is, this is how the term is used throughout the bible. Just because you can strain another meaning out of it doesn't mean people should accept it. This is why I've pointed out that the bible never uses 'in his heart' in the way you suggest - and why I pointed out that it has another phrase for self deception, 'with a double heart'.
Response: The reason why the Psalmist did not write it that way is because he wanted to describe what took place in a unbeliever from a first person perspective for literary and poetic purposes.
--Your justification for this...is? Further, this STILL doesn't support your contention, since it would suggest that the unbeliever earnestly does not believe in god, from his point of view.
I have noticed that my arguments have caused your responses to become increasingly hostile. If this continues then I will erase your insults since it inappropriate given the cordial academic nature of this blog.
--Perhaps if you would deal with the criticism as opposed to handwaving it away you wouldn't be so frustrating.
--I have no doubt that you will erase all these comments though, since they shoot a rhetorical hole through your argument.
"Anonymous",
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be missing the point that Psalm 14:1 simply doesn't address this question. (1) To say that the fool "says in his heart" that God does not exist is simply a way of expressing what we would all agree is true of the atheist, namely that he fundamentally, at his core, despises the notion that there is a God and refuses to believe it. This verse says absolutely nothing about whether or not this fool also has a deeper, basic belief that God exists. (2) Not only that, but the fool "says (to himself)" that there is no God. Couldn't the fool be lying to himself? This verse simply doesn't address such questions, and so it cannot possibly count as an argument against Nate's position. (3) Remember also that the Psalms are poetry, so you can't expect to read them like you would an epistemological treatise.
Now, what Paul says in Romans 1 is that all men know God, and that in their stubbornness and sinfulness they suppress that belief and deny that God exists. Since we believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and therefore true, naturally we think that both Romans 1 and Psalm 14 are true. Since I have already given you 3 reasons to question your attempted interpretation of Psalm 14, I see no reason not to take it's meaning as expressing the same thing as what Paul says in Romans 1. So, to combine the two verses into a paraphrase, we might say "The fool knows God, but in his unrighteousness he suppresses that knowledge and says in his heart 'there is no God!'"
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, so we can avoid unnecessary responses, I am AGREEING with you that Psalm 14:1 does not teach that the fool's belief is caused by self-deception. However, it does not deny that the fool is self-deceived either. Thus, it does not constitute an argument for your position, while it does (or at least can) fit harmoniously with Nate's position.
"Anonymous",
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be missing the point that Psalm 14:1 simply doesn't address this question.
--I disagree, I think it's quite clear that it does. Have you read the entire chapter?
(1) To say that the fool "says in his heart" that God does not exist is simply a way of expressing what we would all agree is true of the atheist, namely that he fundamentally, at his core, despises the notion that there is a God and refuses to believe it.
--I wouldn't agree with this. The verse says nothing about despising the notion or refusing to believe in it. The verse specifically says 'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.' You are adding to the bible this stuff about 'despising' and 'refusing to believe in'. The *text* disagrees with your interpretation.
--In fact, further verses suggest that their non belief stem from ignorance (14.4) "Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people [as] they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD."
--You seem to be adding to the text in order to justify your changing of it's meaning.
This verse says absolutely nothing about whether or not this fool also has a deeper, basic belief that God exists.
--? Why would it? That concept is completely garbled! "in his heart" as its used throughout the bible suggests a core belief.
--What is your biblical justification for this 'second' belief? Further, how does this reconcile with the notion later in the verse where god is calling the unbeliever ignorant?
--You seem to be begging the question. The hermanuetics do not align with your interpretation and it's completely strained.
(2) Not only that, but the fool "says (to himself)" that there is no God. Couldn't the fool be lying to himself?
--I don't think this is biblically supported. The bible's use of 'in his heart' is not simply speaking to oneself. They use the term ''with a double heart'' to suggest that.
--Further if you substitute your meaning then the whole Psalm 14 becomes garbled. This is not a verse in the first person as Nathaneal suggested. This is a verse *about* non believers.
This verse simply doesn't address such questions, and so it cannot possibly count as an argument against Nate's position.
--Hermanuetics do not support your view. The verse clearly supports what I'm saying as this is how 'in his heart' is used in every other instance in the bible.
--Please address this fact! Otherwise you are just begging the question.
(3) Remember also that the Psalms are poetry, so you can't expect to read them like you would an epistemological treatise.
--Picking and choosing.
Now, what Paul says in Romans 1 is that all men know God, and that in their stubbornness and sinfulness they suppress that belief and deny that God exists. Since we believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and therefore true, naturally we think that both Romans 1 and Psalm 14 are true. Since I have already given you 3 reasons to question your attempted interpretation of Psalm 14, I see no reason not to take it's meaning as expressing the same thing as what Paul says in Romans 1.
--None of those reasons are supported biblically. Further this is begging the question. Finally are either of you expecting to convince anyone that this argument Nathanel presented is legitimate? If so, then you will have to come up with better reasons because right now all an atheist has to do to refute Nathaneal's argument is point to Psalms 14.1.
So, to combine the two verses into a paraphrase, we might say "The fool knows God, but in his unrighteousness he suppresses that knowledge and says in his heart 'there is no God!'"
--You can say that, but it wouldn't make sense biblically.
Just to be clear, so we can avoid unnecessary responses, I am AGREEING with you that Psalm 14:1 does not teach that the fool's belief is caused by self-deception. However, it does not deny that the fool is self-deceived either. Thus, it does not constitute an argument for your position, while it does (or at least can) fit harmoniously with Nate's position.
--Negative - my point is that you cannot rationally read those passages in the manner you suggest. Hermanuetics argues against you here, as NO WHERE in the bible is 'in his heart' used in the manner you suggest. It's mindboggling here that you appealing to ignorance (a logical fallacy).
To make it short:
ReplyDeleteIt's fairly obvious that the bible *CAN* be made to say anything. The key to understanding what the bible means is hermaneutics (sp?). So unless you are ultimately arguing that the bible can be made to say anything, then you will have to admit that Psalms 14.1 clearly blows a hole in Nathaneal's reasoning.
Unless, of course, you can show that hermanuetically speaking, Nathanael has a leg to stand on. Right now, it's looking like I'm King Arthur in Monty Python's Holy Grail and I've just lopped off the Black Knight's (Nathanael) two arms and leg and he's hopping around.
So, what to make of the Roman's verse? Upon reading it, I don't think that it's clear that the Romans verse is saying what you want it to be saying. It seems to be referring to a specific group of people back in Paul's day - the Pagans. If you'll read the verse in context, I think it's fairly clear.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the numerous posts, but just check it out - Paul is referring to Pagans, as I said. He's speaking in past tense as well.
ReplyDeleteAt best you could argue that "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;" shows that the ungodly/unrighteous will be punished.
Here's a commentary about Rom 1:19 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; "
(Notice it says 'them' and not all men)
:http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=4&contentID=1718&commInfo=5&topic=Romans
"What discoveries they had: That which may be known of God is manifest, en autois—among them; that is, there were some even among them that had the knowledge of God, were convinced of the existence of one supreme Numen. The philosophy of Pythagoras, Plato, and the Stoics, discovered a great deal of the knowledge of God, as appears by abundance of testimonies. That which may be known, which implies that there is a great deal which may not be known. The being of God may be apprehended, but cannot be comprehended. We cannot by searching find him out, Job 11:7-9. Finite understandings cannot perfectly know an infinite being; but, blessed be God, there is that which may be known, enough to lead us to our chief end, the glorifying and enjoying of him; and these things revealed belong to us and to our children, while secret things are not to be pried into, Deu. 29:29.
2. Whence they had these discoveries: God hath shown it to them. Those common natural notions which they had of God were imprinted upon their hearts by the God of nature himself, who is the Father of lights. This sense of a Deity, and a regard to that Deity, are so connate with the human nature that some think we are to distinguish men from brutes by these rather than by reason. "
There's more to that commentary and I think it's worth reading, but the point is that Paul is not saying that all men, all non believers, etc... as Nathaneal suggests.
This is why hermenuetics is important. It illuminates the true meaning of the bible.
Anonymous,
ReplyDelete"Heart" in Hebrew is a word that includes the thoughts, emotions, will, etc. of a person. For someone to say something in his heart is simply to say something to himself, to predicate a belief of himself. I'm sorry, but that simply does not refute the notion that he is lying to himself. He could very well think that he believes that there is no God, and if you asked him, "Do you believe that there is a God?" he would say no. But that doesn't rule out the possibility of self-deception.
You can continue to beat your fists and say that this phrase must mean that the fool is not decieving himself, but you have not demonstrated this. You have only given one other verse that does nothing more than to show that when someone "says x in their heart" they are not ALWAYS wrong or self-deceived.
To put it another way, you have merely shown that not all x's are y's. But you must show that NO x is a y. I don't know how else to say it.
Moreover, my comment about poetry cannot simply be dismissed and picking and choosing. You are the one who has been trying to lecture us on the importance of hermeneutics. Good hermeneutics means recognizing the difference between different genres of literature and interpreting them appropriately. Are you suggesting that we interpret a didactic passage of an epistle identically to the way we interpret poetic or prophetic or apocalyptic imagery?
Lastly, with regards to Romans 1, Paul is not merely referring to some specific group of people. If so, can you tell me which group? Is it only the Greeks? Maybe the Egyptians? And how do you know?
IF, however, you simply mean that he is referring to all those who have rejected God in the past, then I would agree. But I don't see how that helps your case. Either way, he is saying that all those who have rejected God and lived in sin actually KNEW God, so they have no excuse for their sin. In the Greek we see that Paul is referring to "the" God. He does not mean that all unbelievers merely have some vague sense of deity. They know that The God of the Bible exists, and they will be held accountable for suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness. In other words, Paul's whole point is to show that unbelievers cannot claim ignorance of God and his Law as an excuse that will aquit them on the last day.
"Heart" in Hebrew is a word that includes the thoughts, emotions, will, etc. of a person. For someone to say something in his heart is simply to say something to himself, to predicate a belief of himself.
ReplyDelete--I do not agree and I do not think you can provide verses to support this. You are reading it the way you want to read it as opposed to hermanuetically.
I'm sorry, but that simply does not refute the notion that he is lying to himself.
--It's entirely possible that he could be lying in that phrase - but my point is that you have no biblical support for this view. EVERY time the phrase is used in the bible it's used to indicate belief. The bible also has another phrase to indicate self deception (which you've ignored). In sum, you are reading into scripture that which is not there, as the context demonstrates that the unbeliever is ignorant - NOT that he's lying to himself. Read the rest of the chapter!
He could very well think that he believes that there is no God, and if you asked him, "Do you believe that there is a God?" he would say no. But that doesn't rule out the possibility of self-deception.
--This view muddles how the term is used in the bible. It has ZERO scriptural support. Ergo, I will maintain a CONSISTENT reading of the bible instead of reading it in such a way that you can read anything into it. Ultimately you are harming your entire position here as you are implying that scripture can be said to say anything.
You can continue to beat your fists and say that this phrase must mean that the fool is not decieving himself, but you have not demonstrated this.
--Beat my fists? I've demonstrated my argument. You and Nathanael have not shown biblical support for your interpretation and you are IGNORING hermanuetics here. To be frank, I think this is fairly an open and shut case and it astonishes me that you all are willfully disregarding what the text actually says.
You have only given one other verse that does nothing more than to show that when someone "says x in their heart" they are not ALWAYS wrong or self-deceived.
--Do you want me to give more? I certainly can, but I didn't want to bog down the conversation.
Here are a few more:
Genesis 8:21 And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake, for that the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done.
--So in your view, Jehovah is being self deceptive?
Ecclesiastes 3:17 I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked; for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work. 18 I said in my heart, It is because of the sons of men, that God may prove them, and that they may see that they themselves are but as beasts.
--Maybe he doesn't really believe this?
Genesis 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
--Maybe Abraham is just lying to himself?
Genesis 27:41 And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him. And Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand. Then will I slay my brother Jacob.
--Perhaps the days of mourning aren't really at hand?
--I can go on, of course, but it's really incumbant upon YOU and NATHANAEL to provide scriptural backing for your interpretation. Please show where 'in his heart' means what you think it means. Until you do that, you are dead in the water.
To put it another way, you have merely shown that not all x's are y's. But you must show that NO x is a y. I don't know how else to say it.
--No, I don't. I certainly could go through the bible and pick out every instance, in fact, go to this link (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=in+his+heart&t=KJV). Please find ONE that uses 'in his heart' in the way you mean it. YOU need to support your side of the hermanuetical argument here - I ALREADY have provided support for my side.
Moreover, my comment about poetry cannot simply be dismissed and picking and choosing.
--So then the poetry has no meaning?
You are the one who has been trying to lecture us on the importance of hermeneutics. Good hermeneutics means recognizing the difference between different genres of literature and interpreting them appropriately. Are you suggesting that we interpret a didactic passage of an epistle identically to the way we interpret poetic or prophetic or apocalyptic imagery?
--Of course not - but you are suggesting we ignore it entirely.
Lastly, with regards to Romans 1, Paul is not merely referring to some specific group of people. If so, can you tell me which group? Is it only the Greeks? Maybe the Egyptians? And how do you know?
--I already told you - pagans. Are you suggesting that all atheists create bird idols? I know because I read the passage. I even provided a scholarly analysis.
IF, however, you simply mean that he is referring to all those who have rejected God in the past, then I would agree.
--No, I'm not. He's specifically referring to philosophers. I don't get this, did you not read what I quoted or the link I presented?
But I don't see how that helps your case. Either way, he is saying that all those who have rejected God and lived in sin actually KNEW God, so they have no excuse for their sin.
--It helps my case because he is *NOT* saying this! Why do you ignore what I provided?
In the Greek we see that Paul is referring to "the" God. He does not mean that all unbelievers merely have some vague sense of deity.
--You support this....?
They know that The God of the Bible exists, and they will be held accountable for suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness.
--Your support is...?
In other words, Paul's whole point is to show that unbelievers cannot claim ignorance of God and his Law as an excuse that will aquit them on the last day.
--Your support is...?
--Seriously, you seem to be pulling this out of whole cloth here. The passage is in past tense and Paul is referring to a specific group of people.
--Are you interested in the truth or do you only care about being perceived of as correct? If it's the former, then please study the passages, commentary, etc that I've provided. If it's the latter, then I would suggest that you don't argue this in public with someone competent in hermanuetics as you will undoubtably be shown to be relying on Bahnsen dogma.
--I'm sorry that the argument isn't stronger or a slam dunk, but that's no reason to resort to appeals to igorance or to throw away hermanuetics.
FYI - I didn't miss the fact that you completely dodged the context of the Psalms chapter. You didn't respond to:
ReplyDelete"--In fact, further verses suggest that their non belief stem from ignorance (14.4) "Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people [as] they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.""
Which, upon your view of what 14.1 means, makes utterly no sense. I guess that's why you didn't respond to it though.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to ignore all of your comments except for one right now (if we have to we can come back to them) because you have effectively conceded the whole argument.
You said: "It's entirely possible that he could be lying in that phrase - but my point is that you have no biblical support for this view."
The ONLY thing I have been attempting to argue about Psalm 14:1 is that it is POSSIBLE that the fool is lying to himself. Perhaps you haven't understood that, and I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. So, by conceding that it is merely possible that self-deception is going on here, you have conceded all that I wanted to show anyway.
Now, you're quite right that we should only think that the fool is lying to himself IF we have some Scriptural reason to do so, which I think we do in Romans 1.
Moving on to Romans 1, then, how on earth do you get "philosophers" out of the text? Just because you quoted some "scholarly" source doesn't make it correct. Paul says that the wrath of God is being revealed on "ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..." Never does Paul identify any specific group. He is referring to all ungodly men as a general category.
You said: "I already told you - pagans. Are you suggesting that all atheists create bird idols?"
This misses the point. Paul is writing in the 1st century, so of course he's not talking about atheists living in 2009 (what happened to good hermeneutics?). He's talking about all ungodly and unrighteous men. And in his time they were pagans who worshiped false gods. Even the Epicureans, who were functional atheists, still held up the pretense that they believed in the traditional Greek gods, so there's no group who doesn't fall under Paul's generalization here.
You said: "--You support this...?"
Look up the passage in the Greek and you'll see what I mean about him referring to "the" God and not just some vague deity.
As for the other one, Paul says as much in the passage, "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." What do you think it means that these ungodly men are "without excuse"? Paul goes on to talk about the final judgment in Romans 2.
In any case, your original comment was that Psalm 14:1 somehow definitively proved Nate's argument to be wrong, which you have now conceded that it does not. So I'm going to respectfully bow out of the discussion now, since we are no longer arguing the original point, and I'm afraid it would take way too much time to argue about whether or not unbelievers know God (not just from Romans 1, but other passages). I'm already behind in my reading and paper research for school, as well as other blog posts that are now overdue.
Thanks for a lively discussion.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to ignore all of your comments except for one right now (if we have to we can come back to them) because you have effectively conceded the whole argument.
You said: "It's entirely possible that he could be lying in that phrase - but my point is that you have no biblical support for this view."
The ONLY thing I have been attempting to argue about Psalm 14:1 is that it is POSSIBLE that the fool is lying to himself. Perhaps you haven't understood that, and I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. So, by conceding that it is merely possible that self-deception is going on here, you have conceded all that I wanted to show anyway.
--By possible, I'm talking of logical possibilities. It's possible that the passage is talking about someone named 'the fool' as well, but there is no rational reason to believe that it is.
--If your argument boils down to the logical possibility that the bible suggests what you think it suggests then it's an extraordinarily weak argument.
Now, you're quite right that we should only think that the fool is lying to himself IF we have some Scriptural reason to do so, which I think we do in Romans 1.
--The trouble with this is that you are robbing Romans 1 of it's content. Further, you are not being diligent with your hermanuetics. I've repeatedly pointed out that the most rational interpretation of the 14.1 passage is based on a number of things: 1. The context of the chapter - specifically 14.4 2. The use throughout the bible of 'in his heart' 3. The availability of a specific phrase that was available to the ancient Hebrews.
--In short the most rational way to interpret the phrase is how I've presented it. Therefore the rational mind would reject Nathaneal's argument. Sure, it's possible to interpret the bible in many different ways, but once you open that door, you can no longer claim the infallibility of the bible, since the term infallibility becomes meaningless.
Moving on to Romans 1, then, how on earth do you get "philosophers" out of the text? Just because you quoted some "scholarly" source doesn't make it correct.
--No, it doesn't, but did you read what the source wrote? It makes sense out of the context of the phrase and the time period the people were living in. Your view does not, since atheism was non existent (virtually, anyway) in Ancient Rome. Again, in order to come up with your interpretation, you have to squeeze out context and consistency.
Paul says that the wrath of God is being revealed on "ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men..." Never does Paul identify any specific group. He is referring to all ungodly men as a general category.
--You are again missing the context. The context is 'all men who hold truth in unrighteousness', not all ungodly/unrighteous men. The prior verses Paul says he's specifically talking to the Jews 'first' and also to the Greek. The verses after 1.18 then go on to clarify exactly who Paul means - the philosophers of old. "When *they* knew God" (1.21), they 'changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image' (1.23) All of this is past tense for a reason. You are cherry picking Romans here.
This misses the point. Paul is writing in the 1st century, so of course he's not talking about atheists living in 2009 (what happened to good hermeneutics?).
--You are missing the point, you are cherry picking scripture. This is my point.
He's talking about all ungodly and unrighteous men.
--No, he's not. Check out 1.15. Further, ungodly and unrighteous is not the same thing as a non believer - it is a person of a different faith. Hence the reason why Paul writes 1.17.
--You are cannablizing the bible in order to force fit your argument here. You rip out the context and as such, your interpretation is strained.
And in his time they were pagans who worshiped false gods. Even the Epicureans, who were functional atheists, still held up the pretense that they believed in the traditional Greek gods, so there's no group who doesn't fall under Paul's generalization here.
--There are a lot of groups, the atheists, for one.
You said: "--You support this...?"
Look up the passage in the Greek and you'll see what I mean about him referring to "the" God and not just some vague deity.
--The website I linked to translates it from greek, you can literally look it up in greek! This is nothing more then a 'trust me' appeal. I'm sorry, but I think it's clear that you have it wrong here. It's also dubious that on the one hand, you don't care about how the bible phrases things (ie, in his heart), yet you'd have me look this up in Greek to see if it matches other uses, to confirm your viewpoint? You are seeing what you want to see here. This is obvious.
As for the other one, Paul says as much in the passage, "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." What do you think it means that these ungodly men are "without excuse"? Paul goes on to talk about the final judgment in Romans 2.
--This is a clear reference to the arguments of philosophers. Otherwise it makes literally no sense.
In any case, your original comment was that Psalm 14:1 somehow definitively proved Nate's argument to be wrong, which you have now conceded that it does not.
--My comment demonstrates that Nate's view is not rational to hold. This is grasping at straws here and I think you know it.
So I'm going to respectfully bow out of the discussion now, since we are no longer arguing the original point, and I'm afraid it would take way too much time to argue about whether or not unbelievers know God (not just from Romans 1, but other passages). I'm already behind in my reading and paper research for school, as well as other blog posts that are now overdue.
--Fair enough. I would appreciate it, if you had some time, if you would do a thorough hermanuetical study. I think that after you did that you will see where I'm coming from. The trouble I find is that when people have arguments, they will defend them even when they are no longer defensible. I think this is clear here, since the only way to support Nathanael's argument is to jettison the bible's credibility by making it possible to interpret it to say anything.
Thanks for a lively discussion.
--Thank you and Nathaneal.
Nice theological discussion on what the Bible says. But how would you defend the claim that everyone believes in God to an atheist, who does not accept biblical authority? I assert, as an empirical premise, that I do not believe in God. What now? I mean, I suppose there's some presuppositionalist argument coming as to why I must believe in God. But first, these arguments rely on special pleading and double standards. You always treat secular philosophy with quite different standards than you do theological (in your case, Christian) philosophy. You treat yours with kid gloves and rely on trite answers while expecting secular philosophy to solve every problem in the history of philosophy. Meanwhile, you answer everything with "God did it" and not much else.
ReplyDeleteSecond, even if I believed in premises that were inconsistent given my atheism, that would not entail that I actually believed in God, as Bahnsen tried to argue. That's a confusion between psychology and philosophy. So where is the evidence that I must believe in God, firstly, and, secondly, where's the psychological evidence that I actually do?
Bahnsen, though a great debater, has no answers here. Do you?
Travis,
ReplyDeleteI'll let Nate respond to you in more detail, but briefly: (1) This is a philosophical argument that is meant to explain Romans 1. So obviously if you're an atheist who doesn't believe Romans 1 anyway, this argument won't be very meaningful to you. But that's not it's purpose. This isn't an apologetic argument. (2) Neither Nate nor myself would consider ourselves "Presuppositional" in the fullest sense. We disagree with Bahnsen on many points. This just happen to be one area of agreement.
Sure. That's why I mentioned the fact that he had no arguments for this. And that's why I remarked that this argument was not designed for what I was asking, but for another question. But I was asking this one. And I expect you guys, understanding Frame properly, and Van Til in those lights, to be better, and have the answer that Bahnsen didn't. Don't let me down here, eh? :-)
ReplyDeleteLet me break it down for you.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I said, with commentary:
Nice theological discussion on what the Bible says.
[I have agreed with, at least according to you, the conclusion of the argument here. Not a problem; I disagree with the premises, which I will question later in the post.]
But how would you defend the claim that everyone believes in God to an atheist, who does not accept biblical authority? I assert, as an empirical premise, that I do not believe in God. What now?
[See? I have agreed that he's right about the Bible. But I am questioning the Bible, knowing that this wasn't his point, but that he needs to do so, and will, given the fact that he's a philosopher who's a Christian, and not afraid to defend his beliefs.]
I mean, I suppose there's some presuppositionalist argument coming as to why I must believe in God. But first, these arguments rely on special pleading and double standards. You always treat secular philosophy with quite different standards than you do theological (in your case, Christian) philosophy. You treat yours with kid gloves and rely on trite answers while expecting secular philosophy to solve every problem in the history of philosophy. Meanwhile, you answer everything with "God did it" and not much else.
[The main problem with presuppositionalism. Of all types; even the Frame-style stuff that allows natural theology. There exist no good arguments, really, that can contend with the problem of evil, for instance. ]
Second, even if I believed in premises that were inconsistent given my atheism, that would not entail that I actually believed in God, as Bahnsen tried to argue. That's a confusion between psychology and philosophy. So where is the evidence that I must believe in God, firstly, and, secondly, where's the psychological evidence that I actually do?
[Self explanatory, really.]
Bahnsen, though a great debater, has no answers here. Do you?
[Just noting the differences that you point out here. I know they don't see eye to eye. But, given that, what is the answer to the atheist? That seems kind of relevant. :-) ]
Travis, thanks for explaining.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I won't speak for Nate, but I wouldn't try to defend to an atheist that he really *does* believe in God. I think that's an apologetic dead end. So when you ask "how would you do this?" my answer is simply "I wouldn't." What Nate's argument does is show that it is at least *plausible* that an atheist *could* actually believe in God while suppressing that belief and telling himself that he does not. So it shows that the Bible *could* be right. But it does not give the atheist a reason to think that the Bible actually is right in this case.
Does that make sense?
Travis,
ReplyDeleteI am really going to have to agree with David here. I think it is a really silly idea to argue with someone who is self-deceived and suppressing the truth that they are self deceived and suppressing the truth. Any argument you would give they could just deny it on introspective grounds, dishonest as that may be from perspective. So to answer your question: I wouldn't...ever. I would instead give them theistic and historical arguments that make them look unreasonable and silly.
I hope that helps,
NPT
So for you to be right.
ReplyDeleteEvery single atheist in the world has to be deluded...about themselves?
I am an atheist kind sir,
and I can fairly assume that I might know my mind better than you.
Saying this...I do not believe in Yahweh. There is nothing to hate...he doesn't exist.
Your argument is like saying that you hate Odin, because you have deceived yourself to not believe in him.
I think you should try to justify your bible with stronger arguments.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteThat's right every single atheist self-deluded. I can show that and I will give you a strong argument to justify the reasonable and logical word of The Lord.
This argument proves that God exists and for anybody to reject these premises they would have to be self-deluded which proves my point:
I will argue that if one is an atheist then they ought to be a skeptic with respect to moral facts. But it seems that moral skepticism is false and hence if atheism entails moral skepticism then atheism is false.
P1: If God does not exists then moral skepticism obtains
P2: It is false that moral skepticism obtains
C: Hence, God exists
The argument is as follows:
P1: If God does not exists then moral skepticism obtains
If atheism is true then there is no good reason to trust our moral intuitions because moral facts or objective moral propositions do not have causal control over anything. In other words, they are causally impotent. These moral facts or objective moral propositions are impersonal, necessary, immaterial, and transcend the physical world. There seems to be no thing in the natural world alone to ensure in any sense that we will have reliable moral intuitions that correspond to the objective moral propositions. Moral skepticism is the position that we do know what is in fact right or wrong. Hence, if atheism is true we do not know what is in fact right or wrong.
P2: It is false that moral skepticism obtains
Premise 2 seem more reasonable to affirm than it's negation because the truth that 1+1=2 seems just as clear as it is wrong to torture a infant for no good reason. These truths are obvious and apparent to us. Hence, it seems that I know more that it's wrong to torture infants for no good reason than I know that moral skepticism is a reasonable position.
C: Hence, God exists
If God exists then he is a necessary immaterial personal being that has causal power and causes us to have reliable moral faculties. Theism provides us with moral knowledge rather than moral skepticism. Hence, because I have moral knowledge this entails the truth of theism.