Romans 1:20 says that the invisible things of God are "clearly seen." Emphasis on clearly.
pg. 198 "The verb (kathoraō) can refer to sense perception or to mental intelligence... human understanding of general revelation involves the use of both the senses and the mind. As scholars have observed, "The revelation does not stop with perception but is expected to include reflections, the drawing of conclusions about the Creator."
- Romans 1:20 confirms the validity of sense perception. Farewell, Hume.
The conscience is never fully destroyed/seared to escape judgement from God.
- Curious on the history of legal pleas of insanity. Considering the conscience is never fully destroyed that man would have an excuse before God, what is the basis for having an excuse before men?
pg. 210 "Paul's sermon at Mars Hill attacked pagan idolatry with facts about God and his world acknowledged even by pagans (17:24-29)."
- Fascinating that whilst the Old Testament is the point of contact and bridge for evangelizing the Jews, we see in the book of Acts that appeals to general revelation are the points of contact for evangelizing the Gentiles.
pg. 210 "General revelation is not... to convince people of something they do not know, but to convict them of what they do..."
General revelation shows us God's majesty and His command over creation.
pg. 218 "Non-Christian wisdom generates a perspective opposed to the gospel... This appears to be Paul's meaning in Colossians 2:8... He is not advocating a total rejection of all that the philosophers say, but a recognition that human philosophy is corrupted by deceit."
- I think Beeke and Smalley are too harsh on philosophy in general here. They say that "human philosophy is corrupted by deceit" in a seemingly encompassing statement regarding philosophy in general. But philosopher in and of itself is unavoidable; there is a specific type of philosophy that Paul is condemning.
- John Calvin commentary on Colossians 2:8, "As many have mistakingly imagined that philosophy is here condemned by Paul, we must point out what he means by this term. Now, in my opinion, he means everything that men contrive of themselves when wishing to be wise through means of their own understanding, and that not without a specious pretext of reason, so as to have a plausible appearance. For there is no difficulty in rejecting those contrivances of men which have nothing to set them off, but in rejecting those that captivate men’s minds by a false conceit of wisdom. Or should any one prefer to have it expressed in one word, philosophy is nothing else than a persuasive speech, which insinuates itself into the minds of men by elegant and plausible arguments. Of such a nature, I acknowledge, will all the subtleties of philosophers be, if they are inclined to add anything of their own to the pure word of God."
Does not special revelation itself rely on general revelation? To even read the text of Scripture requires general revelation.
pg. 220 "... it was common in early modern theology to use Aristotle's language of [four] causes..."
- "Calvin used this philosophical approach to causality to explain the doctrine of justification, saying that the 'efficient cause' of justification is 'the mercy of the Heavenly Father and his freely given love toward us'; the 'material cause' is 'Christ, with his obedience'; the 'instrumental cause' is 'faith'; and the 'final cause' is the demonstration of divine glory, consisting simultaneously 'in the proof of divine justice and in the praise of God's goodness.' Calvin grounded this Aristotelian analysis upon his exegesis of biblical texts such as John 3:16 and Romans 3:23-26."
pg. 238 "We reject as unbiblical and semi-Pelagian the stance on natural theology taken by the Roman Catholic Council Vatican I (1870) which divides knowledge into two categories, one obtained 'by natural reason' and the other 'by divine faith.'"
- Am I missing something...? How is it wrong to distinguish between these two types of knowledge? Haven't we already acknowledged that Romans 1 for instance describes certain knowledge that is obtained via creation/nature?
- For example, later on pg. 255: "Luther taught that there are two kinds of knowledge of God: a general knowledge of his existence and justice that all men possess but that remains futile, and a particular knowledge of God as Savior through Jesus Christ." How is this not the same categorical distinction?
- One more example, later on pg. 258: "In the late sixteenth century, Franciscus Junius distinguished between natural and supernatural theology, both authored by God, but one granted by nature through the method of human reason, and the other by grace." How is this also not the same categorical distinction as made above?
pg. 239 "When addressing Jews and God-fearing Gentiles who know and respect the Holy Scriptures, Paul appeals to biblical history and makes no reference to the witness of creation (Acts 13:16-41). When exhorting a crowd of pagans ready to worship anyone who works a miracle, the apostle appeals to simple facts about human nature and everyday experience (14:11-18). When addressing the intellectual elites of Athens, Paul makes a more reasoned argument that includes allusions and quotations from pagan writers (17:22-31)."
pg. 248 "... in contrast to most modern natural theology, Athanasius insists that the creation reveals not some generic 'deity' but specifically the Son." What did Athanasius mean by this?
pg. 250 "Non-Christian philosophers see God in the same way men with poor eyesight view another land 'at a distance,' without knowing the way there."