Re: Romans 1:20

I'm not an expert on Trent & my old edition of its decrees has a rather
sketchy index but I'm fairly sure that it said nothing about this issue.
The relevant statement on a putative natural knowledge of God is from
Vatican I: "The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the
beginning and end of all things, may be certainly known by the natural light
of human reason, by means of created things ... but that it pleased his
wisdom and bounty to reveal Himself and the eternal decrees of Hid will to
mankind by another and supernatural way."

Luther did not object to the bare idea that people could know that there is
a God apart from revelation. When the heathen sailors in the first chapter
of Jonah "each cried to his god" because of the storm that had come upon
them (Jonah 1:5), this shows Luther that all people know of God: "For if
they had been ignorant of the existence of God or of a godhead, how could
they have called upon him and cried to him?" They know that there is a God,
but not who this God is: "Thus you also note that the people in the ship
know of God, but they have no definite God." (Lectures on Jonah, Luther's
Works Vol. 19, p.53 & 56). In fact he refers to Rom.1:20 in this
connection. But what he rejects in the 19th Heidelberg theses which I
quoted below is the idea that one can do proper theology on that basis.

There is no extant statement of Luther about Aquinas' five proofs for the
existence of God so we don't know for sure what he thought about such
arguments. But since he was very critical of the use of Aristotle in
theology ("He who would theologize with Aristotle without losing his soul
must first become thoroughly a fool for Christ"), we might guess that he
wouldn't have been too impressed.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Bishop" <stevebishop_uk@hotmail.com>
To: <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: Romans 1:20

> George (or indeed anyone else!)
>
> Is it true that Luther was condemned by the Council of Trent for saying
> there is no proof of God's
> existence?
>
> Is his position on this documented?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
> http://stevebishop.blogspot.com
>
>>From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
>>To: <wgreen@god4science.com>, <asa@calvin.edu>
>>Subject: Re: Romans 1:20
>>Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:23:41 -0400
>>
> <snip>
>
>>19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon
>>the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in
>>those things which have actually happened. [Rom.1:20]
>>
>> 20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who
>> comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering
>> and the cross.
>>
>>
>> (Luther)
>>
>>
>>
>>Paul's point is not that people actually do know God from their experience
>>of the world but that there is sufficient evidence for God to be known in
>>that way. But in fact people distort that evidence and produce idols, as
>>he goes on to say in the following verses. Our tendency to "believe in a
>>God or gods" is what Calvin meant when he said that the human mind is "a
>>factory of idols." Thus in the real condition of humanity in the world
>>God must first be known in Christ (as Paul finally says in 3:21 ff after
>>dealing with the universal problem of sin) before our experience of the
>>world & reason can tell us anything about God. That is why Luther says
>>that anyone who tries to understand God by starting with "those things
>>which have actually happened" (or "the things that have been made"),
>>echoing Rom.1:20, "does not deserve to be called a theologian."
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jul 18 18:18:25 2005