RE: [asa] Romans 1:20

Quoting John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>:

> The scriptures don't say except in the general terms of all things working
> together for good, that if you marry a person for wrong reasons that it will
> lead you to Christ. In fact this is obviously an exception to the rule. They
> do specifically say however that the invisible things of creation and that
> which was made and the heavens etc will lead you to Christ. So this is a
> flawed analogy.
> ...snip...
> So yes, Ross had chosen his own metaphysic by choosing science but it was
> taking the advice of atheists, and he arrived at a different conclusion. I
> contend this still proves my point. In at least some cases, the facts of
> science can be used to lead people to Christ. I don't see why this is so
> controversial or why this even needs to be defended. And that the fact that
> the Bible also teaches this is just extra.
>
> John

I didn’t intend for my analogy to be pressed that far… and you are correct that
it shouldn't be. I was merely pointing out that we can’t rule out things that
God could use to bring people to Christ, even if those things are imperfect or
even just plain wrong. For that matter we do specifically know not to rule out
marriage as *a* way, (not *the* way). “How do you know, O wife, whether you
will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband…” (I Cor. 7:16) But
my broader point had nothing to do with marriage specifically.

Regarding Romans 1:20, I am still struggling with that verse, and these posts
are fueling my thoughts as well. I can’t get over the apparent contradiction
even just in the phrases: “invisible attributes”followed by "have been clearly
seen…” all in the same sentence. Since it seems so obviously contradictory, I
take it as a deep paradox. And of course, I tend to be much more comfortable
with one side of that paradox: the “invisible attributes” part. I’ve been
influenced by George and others here towards thinking that natural revelation is
NOT a sufficient guarantee leading to Christ. But I don’t have a good answer
for you, John, on the other side of this paradox: “clearly seen” and “without
excuse”. I have no trouble with people (along with the fine tradition of
psalmists) finding in nature much that points them to God. But this passage
uses such strong language as to almost make it sound like a guarantee. Apart
from the fact that anything exists at all, I just don’t see proof in science
that compels one to believe against their will. And I think George has brought
out the Christological theme of Christ emptying himself as he came to dwell in
creation. That is a compelling theme to me. Keep in mind, I'm not saying
revelation doesn't ever come through nature. My claim is just the weaker
version: "It isn't a sure thing." God has to use it for specific individuals.

Meanwhile, I continue to wrestle with the other paradox of an imperfect means
used by God to lead to a perfect truth: Christ. While I absolutely believe
this is so, it can be used to justify all sorts of obviously false mayhem.
“Lying for God” comes to mind. My only answer to that at the moment is that
bearing false witness is forbidden in Scripture, so we should never try to use
it to bring people to Truth (Christ). But science is not forbidden in
Scripture, so have at it… But as I said before, God can even use evil. Just
because somebody comes to Christ through method x, doesn't render x beyond
general questioning in human terms. Also, who is to say that people brought to
Christ by Henry Morris, even if through deceptive persuasions, were all
illegitimate conversions. I won’t claim that. But that would not justify his
deception ---Not to mention the damage it does for future witness.

--Merv

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 16 17:23:42 2007