Those who have never heard

1. The psalmist says that the Heavens are declaring the glory of God and the skies the work of His hands (Ps 19:1)

2. The Paul says that through what has been created we get to know of the power and divinity of God (Rom 1:20)

3. What "more" does God reveal through general revelation?

 

They knew the truth of God and exchanged it for a lie. (Romans 1:25)

His invisible attributes (characteristics). Rom 1:20

They also understood God's eternal power, attributes, and divinity through what He has made. Rom 1:20

Their hearts were darkened because they knew the truth of God and rejected it. Rom 1:18

 

They are part of the context of the chapter.
verse 18: The wrath of God is revealed to those who supress the truth, because....they knew the truth of God and rejected it.

verse 25: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. They are the same ones who reject the general revelation of verse 20.

 

Hello Amy,

I think the ESV has very good wording on this.

The evidence is there and always has been, in order for them to believe in God, yet they take the evidence they see in nature as to mean something else.

 

What would compel a person to belive the Gospel (specifc) if the core concepts of sin, forgiveness, et al were not intuitive (general)? I purport all that is necessary for salvation is inborn. The details/terms just give us clarity to articulate that which we already know to be fundamentally true in essence. When a person accepts general revelation he accepts all that that entails including all of the unknown specifics. For instance, I have accepted Heaven as my home despite the fact I don't fully know exactly what it will be like. In other words, comprehensive understanding isn't necessary for a general acceptance of something.


As an aisde, a hypothetical:

"Dear Creator, I know that I am immoral and that I need forgiveness. I accept your forgiveness by whatever means necessary and with whatever that entails."

Convoluted choppy syntax aside, I don't see how this would not qualify as a sinner's prayer.

Convoluted evangelistic regards,
Moi

 

You are right that it is their rejection of revelation that condemns. Can you show me from the Romans text where anyone accepted that revelation?

The theme of the text (the context) is the depravity of all human beings, whether Jew or Gentile. Every human being without exception is guilty before God. There is an order in nature which points to God, and there as a law written in the hearts of all people that has been broken, by which they are condemned (see Rom 2).

You will search in vain for any person getting saved by law, either the law of Moses or the law of general revelation. Here's the passage from Romans 2:

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

and now the parenthetical explanation:

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

Your question: What happens when a person accepts general revelation? My answer: Rom 1 says that they knew God. But were they obedient to the revelation? In no way. How can it be said that anyone "accepts" general revelation based on the text at hand?

The state of condemnation that all people are in due to their disobedience is the static condition into which the Gospel intrudes.

 

Then why must ye be "born again"?

 

J.D., you must be born again to escape hell and enter heaven. Accepting spiritual intution is becoming born again. Or saved. Or converting. Or any other term you choose.

 

Mt 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

You saying there will be folks at this gathering saying, "who is this guy? His Son, who is that?"

If so, wouldn't this being saying God has a limitation if he couldn't get the Word to everyone?

 

JD, I agree with you that no one is saved by the law, as it only condemns and shows me my sin. Yes, we all are guilty of sin whether Jew or Gentile, whether the law is written on tablets of stone or the flesh of the heart. You are right that we are all guilty, I never meant to say otherwise.

 

1. Amy, Let Paul inform us by what he means by "invisible attributes;" he says what they mean in this instance, "his eternal power and divinity."

2. We must agree with Paul, but we must not conclude that this "knowledge" of God was a saving knowledge.

3. Apart from general revelation, as in the case of Abram, God must take the initiative to reveal Himself savingly to fallen man (Gen 12:1ff).

***edited.

 

I do agree that the "knowledge" of God was not a saving knowledge. I'm just saying that by receiving that "knowledge" God will reveal more of Himself.

 

Please disregard the winking emoticon in my post above. I don't know how it got there.

 

When He takes the initiative as in the case of Abram. I agree, then.

 

You have to find a way to bridge the gap between faith and intellect. I agree that there are some things about God that can be known intuitively, but can they be believed intuitively? If I understand you correctly, you think that we can bridge the gap through "inborn" abilities. Why must we be born again if we are born with the ability to be saved?

How would an athiest accept spiritual intuition? An atheist would tell you that he has accepted his spiritual intuition, and that you are the one in denial. How would you counter that argument? You couldn't. Your "heart" told you to believe; his "heart" told him to doubt. If he will not accept scriptural revelation (the Gospel), he will not accept Christ.

And as the disciples said "who then can be saved?". "With man these things are not possible, but with God, this is possible." (Mark 10) In order for a person to be saved, God must open their heart. They must be born again, not in order to just "miss hell" (although they obviously do not go to hell), but they must be born again before they can "see the kingdom of God".

 

I can believe anything I know. How could I not believe in something I know? Do you know you exist but not believe it?

Yes, J.D., I'm well aware that an atheist would claim this about spiritual intuition, the convicting power of the Bible, or anything else spiritual. But you and I both KNOW he is wrong. How, J.D. do we know this? Hmmm... Maybe spritual concepts are inborn.

I agree. Let's not bicker semantics.

One more time, which of the following do you specifically take issue with and why:

1) It is intuitive that there is a Creator.

2) It is intuitive that I/man am/are sinful and need to be foriven by my Creator.

3) If I accept my Creator's forgiveness then by default I accept the method by which he forgives me (i.e. applying the redeeming the blood of Christ to my soul).

4) If I accept my Creator's forgiveness then by default I put faith in His ability to forvige (i.e. Christ literally empowers God to forgive so Christ literally is His ability to forgive).

5) Therefore, the plan of salvation is intuitive.

6) This explains how God's plan of salvation really has appeared unto all men including the Israelites in the OT who had never heard the name of Christ much less the Romans Road.

 

Why J.D...... I thought you just had something in your eye. :thumbs:

 

Yes, it was a beam. Is that a speck I see you yours?
:laugh:

 

Amy,

I am kinda picking up in the end here without going through and reading everything. Has it been mentioned that Romans 1 is really a history of mankind since the beginning rather than a history of every individual person?