Janice -- thanks -- I was referring to the hyper-Calvinist fideist
epistemology of someone like Cornelius Van Til, which it seems to me is
reflected in George's position on Romans. I was not referring to the more
moderate Calvinist position on general revelation and common grace, which I
think is what you're summarizing and which I think is largely correct.
On 1/2/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At 01:13 PM 1/2/2006, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> "... it strikes me initially that you're taking a very strongly
> Calvinistic stance on faith and knowledge. Is that right? I would take a
> more moderated stance on the the first chapters of Romans, to say the people
> do in fact know of God through general revelation, but that they willfully
> refuse to obey him. .."
>
> ### America's Framers were steeped in Calvinistic principles and based
> our Constitution and laws on them. Scroll almost 1/2 way down to "The Emory
> Report" regarding our patent laws and Constitution for more on that here:
> http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/ .
>
> In addition, this is the orthodox Calvinistic (not hyper-Calvinistic)
> teaching on general revelation:
>
> [1] Human beings *cannot suppress* *something* that they don't already
> know.
>
> [2] Human beings *cannot exchange* *something* that they don't have.
>
>
> http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2335
>
> [huge snip] Excerpt:
>
> "...people *suppress* (katecovntwn, katechonto n)* *or hinder *the truth *(
> ajlhvqeia, ale theia)* *by their unrighteousness (ajdikiva, adikia).
>
> Here "unrighteousness" is not so much a general reference to the way in
> which they suppress the truth, but a reference to the sinful acts themselves
> which are used to hold the truth from one's sight.
>
> Nothing could be more futile than to think that we can extinguish or
> destroy the truth through the means of sin. In the end, all we end up doing
> is confirming the truth.
>
> But *what truth do they suppress?* Undoubtedly it refers to the truth
> about God, i.e., his power, authority, and the fact that we are
> accountable to him as Creator (1:19-20).
>
> 1:19-20 The word *because* (diovti, dioti) should be understood as
> explaining why God's wrath is leveled against all the ungodliness of men who
> *suppress the truth* by unrighteous acts. It is because *what can be known
> about God has been plainly revealed to them so that they are without excuse
> *when they deny to God his existence and divine nature. In other words,
> God has so created man and placed him within creation that for man to deny
> His existence, power, and divine nature is to commit a crime worthy of
> punishment, even death, as Paul says in 1:32. God's punishment is just,
> according to Paul, because *such a denial requires the endless suppression
> of "mountains" of evidence to the contrary (cf. Ps 19)*. Such people must
> be living with *a profound and irrational deception, to attempt to make
> this great exchange*, that is, to attempt to deny the existence of God.
>
> *The phrase what can be known about God* (toV gnwstoVn tou` qeou`, to gno
> ston tou theou) *is literally "the knowledge of God.*" It is obvious from
> the whole tenor of the passage that the knowledge here is personal, *but
> not saving knowledge* of God (cf. 1:21, 32). It is probably the knowledge
> that God has implanted in us, connected to the Imago Dei (perhaps
> conscience), and which is sparked or brought to memory through the evidence
> of creation. *Once again, the suppression of this "knowledge" invites the
> wrath of God for it leaves man without excuse.
>
> *1:21-23 Verses 21-23 begin with *for *(gavr, dioti) and give an
> explanation as to why men are without excuse. Even though *people knew God
> in terms of his existence, power, and divine nature*, they did not
> acknowledge him, nor did they give thanks to him or for him. Rather, having
> *suppressed the knowledge of God*, they have become futile in their
> thoughts (ejmataiwvqhsan ejn toi~" dialogismoi~" aujtw~n, emataio the san en
> tois dialogimois).
>
> The term "futile" (the verb and especially the noun) is connected to
> idolatry in the Greek Old Testament (LXX; 2 Sam 7:15; Jer 2:5) and this is
> probably the background underlying Paul's thinking here. Therefore, *to
> suppress the knowledge of God is to engage in the futility of idolatry*.
> It is, in short, to give oneself to "nothing," a non-entity, since an idol
> is in reality "nothing."
>
> The extent of their futility is clearly evident in that *they exchange God
> himself for images of reptiles, four-footed animals, birds, and even human
> beings* (v. 23). While idols can reduce the demand on a guilty conscience,
> they cannot save, as God repeatedly warns (Isa 41:9-10, 21-24; 44:6-23,
> etc.). *Idolatry is the replacement of God*, and true knowledge of him,
> with any other, de facto inferior, object of worship.
>
> The ironic thing about all this is that people arrogantly annex for
> themselves the claim (favskonte", phaskontes) of wisdom when *they replace
> the worship of God who is immortal for the worship of his creation *which
> is mortal.26 In reality they have become fools ( ejmwravnqhsan, emo ranthe
> san [cf. 1 Cor 1:18-25]), lovers who will not stay at home, worshippers of
> something less than even themselves. Is it any wonder that Paul refers to
> their hearts as senseless (ajsuvneto", asunetos) and darkened (ejskotivsqh,
> eskotisthe ) and Isaiah calls them deluded (44:20)?
>
> In 1:18-23 we have seen the basis for God's wrath on *the Gentiles* and
> any other person who acts accordingly. In short, people *suppress the
> obvious knowledge of God in creationa fact which places them under his
> wrath.* In 1:24-32 we will see how he has carried out his wrath against
> people who suppress his existence, power, and divine nature.
>
> 1:24-25 The expression God gave them (parevdwken aujtouV" oJ qeov", paredo
> ken autous ho theos) over means that the process envisioned in 1:18-32 is
> not simply the natural course of events but an ongoing history directed by a
> sovereign God who makes decisions which affect people, societies, and
> cultures. The thought is truly a frightful one. It is reminiscent of Pharaoh
> turning his back on God and in turn having his heart judicially hardened by
> YHWH (Exod 9:16; cf. Rom 9:17).
>
> Though there is no mention of fire and brimstone at this point in Romans,
> there is a process underway that is not altogether distinct from hell. If
> people really want their sinful lifestyles, then the awesome reality is God
> will give them over to it.
>
> As C. S. Lewis as aptly remarked, "There are only two kinds of people in
> the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God
> says, 'Thy will be done.' *All that are in hell chose it."
>
> *The point is, that although Paul is not talking about hell here, and
> indeed there is still hope for these people, there is nonetheless a
> continuum between their present existence and their future plight. *If a
> person really wants God out of their thoughts, as these people most
> definitely do, Love has decided to provide a place in the end where they can
> choose to go and never have to think about him again.
>
> *~ Janice
>
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 2 17:12:37 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 02 2006 - 17:12:37 EST